Paypal Founder Peter Thiel To Speak At Trump's Republican Convention (nbcbayarea.com)

Slashdot reader speedplane writes: The New York Times is reporting that renowned Venture Capitalist, Paypal Founder, and Gawker Litigation Funder, Peter Thiel will be speaking at the Republican National Convention. The original story does not state what Thiel will discuss at the convention, only that he'll be speaking the last day, but there's plenty of speculation.
Facebook issued a statement that though Thiel is on their board of directors, his appearance was "personal," saying Thiel "is not attending on behalf of Facebook or to represent our views." NBC reports Thiel will be the first openly-gay man to speak at the convention in 16 years, "as party leaders refuse to soften the GOP's formal opposition to gay marriage," noting Thiel "has been a staunch supporter of Donald Trump's run for the oval office, previously supported Ron Paul for president and has identified himself as a conservative libertarian in the past... Other speakers will include four of Trump's children, Las Vegas casino owner Phil Ruffin, and actor and former underwear model Antonio Sabato Jr."

Comments

Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

A(nother) self-loathing destructive psychopath with money.

Re:Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

A(nother) self-loathing destructive psychopath with money.

Thiel? or Trump?

Re:Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

Thiel? or Trump?

Yes.

Re: Just what the world needs

[ArmoredDragon]

From what I've seen about Theil, he doesn't come off as self loathing. It occurs to me that just because one is attracted to the same sex doesn't mean they want to be part of the gay scene or culture, nor do they want it to be seen as an integral part of their identity.

In other words, they don't want to be seen as a homosexual Hugh Hefner, which oddly seems to become the default behavior of openly gay people.

Theil seems to want to be in the "Yes I'm attracted to the same sex. Next subject." category, same with other famous people like James Rhandi.

What bothers me is why this is largely viewed as self loathing in the media.

Re: Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

Giving you +100 wouldn't be enough (if I could)... but you hit it perfectly on the head.

There is the view (primarily from the left in my experience) that if you are in a particular group, then you most properly conform to it, otherwise you are a sellout.

White? Racist... unless you prostrate.
Male? Sexist & transphobic... unless you prostrate.
Gay? 100% in favor of SSM.
Trans? Opposed to bathroom restrictions.
Jewish? Democrat.
Black? Democrat.
Smart? Democrat.

And it is this very expectation which makes Milo Yiannopoulos such a dangerous faggot (his term) as he is such a wonderful reminder of how many of them are not only wrong, but blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Re: Just what the world needs

[mattwarden]

Sir, you seem to be confused. When we talk about valuing diversity, we mean we value seeing different levels of melanin levels and people preferring different permutations of genital and orafice penetration. We do not -- I repeat, do not -- mean it's okay to have diversity of thought. Please subscribe to the worldview assigned to you according to your melanin level or sexual preference.

Re: Just what the world needs

[gweilo8888]

Perhaps because he's openly supporting a party and candidate who would like nothing more than to have the law changed so that he could be imprisoned and "reeducated" to take away that personal preference of his. That's hardly the action of a man who is confident in his choices.

Re:Just what the world needs

[zapadnik]

You mean like Hillary Clinton ?

Re: Just what the world needs

[quax]

It's not the thoughts (to the extend that there are any) but the hate.

Re: Just what the world needs

[Applehu Akbar]

Thiel as a Republican speaker is a thumb in the eye to the Bible thumpers, besides being a representative of the nerd viewpoint.

Re: Just what the world needs

[gay358]

As an European I haven't been following all the details, but if I am not mistaken, Trump is actually relatively supportive towards gays (especially if compared to others within Republican party) even if he does not support recognizing gay marriage at the moment. There was story about this issue on New York Times:

Donald Trump's More Accepting Views on Gay Issues Set Him Apart in G.O.P.

Re: Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

He has never said a negative word about gays, and in fact has openly supported them in various ways. Totally out of sync with Republicans, but that's a good thing.

Re: Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Soros?

Re: Just what the world needs

[gweilo8888]

He has, as he does with most things, sat on both sides of the fence. In the anti-gay column, he has:

* Supported North Carolina's effort to stop transgender people from using the bathroom matching their identity: "I believe it should be states’ rights and the state should make the decision. They’re more capable of making the decision."

* Repeatedly said that gay people should not be allowed to marry or have benefits that heterosexual couples are entitled to.

* Selected as his intended VP a man who has a long, LONG history of anti-gay voting, including attempting to institute a bill in Indiana that was intended solely to allow discrimination against LGBT individuals.

He's not as bad as many Republicans on this particular topic, no, but he's hardly pro-gay.

Re: Just what the world needs

[gay358]

It is true that there is more things in your life than just your sexual orientation. Being gay (or straight) is just a part of yourself. You are much more than just your sexual orientation. We all have different opinions about different things, different personalities, different experiences, different interest, different hobbies, different jobs, different families, different diseases, different places we live etc. Sexual orientation does not dictate these things and is often not even involved at all with many of these things.

And when you vote for a candidate, it is almost guaranteed that you are not able to find a candidate that agrees with you on every issue. With the current political system you have to make compromise and try to choose a candidate that has a chance to be elected and is closest to your opinions.

As a Finn I am not able to vote for Trump, but I would vote for him if I could and if the other choices were the current ones. And I am a gay, but not self loathing in any way. I just wish that we here would have similar politicians that understand that uncontrolled Muslim immigration at this rate cannot continue or it is going to destroy Europe. As a gay I am very afraid for the future of next generations of gays if we let Islam to take over of Europe. And even though it won't happen immediately, it will happen in a frighteningly short time period, if this mass immigration from Muslim countries is not stopped.

And before somebody starts to lecture that not all Muslims want to kill gays, I recommend they to check the human rights situation of gays in Muslim countries and the opinion polls done among Muslims both in Muslim countries and in western countries as well. Practically all Muslim countries are more or less black holes for human rights and not just for gays. My best friend, with whom I have lived several years, happens to be a gay from Muslim background and trough him I have much more detailed than many naive leftist who seem to think that we have resources to save the whole world and just being nice to other we will be rewarded with nice behavior towards us. They don't understand that both Islam and overbreeding are the main reasons why these countries they are coming from, are such poor and terrible places. And if we let these people and they continue to insist to practice backwards religion, cousing marriages with mental retardiation and to overbreed, we have not saved their own countries, but we are going to cause the same kind of problems to appear here as well and destroy our own country as well.

And it is not just the gay rights or the rights of women that are at risk. Even with the current immigration levels there is starting to be more and more often Islamic terror attacks in Europe (of course, in many Muslim countries there is even much more terrorism). Sharia patrols are starting to attack people if they drink alcohol, have dog, seem to be gay etc. In many areas firemen, ambulances etc are attacked and they don't go there at least without police escort and even police tries to avoid these areas that seem to be spreading.

And it is not just human rights and security that are threatened. For example, there will be even much more difficult housing crisis, we will run out of money to have social security anymore. On average humanitarian migrant will cost about 500000-1000000 euros during their lifetime and employment levels are often extremely low (partly because of socil security, partly because they tend to have extremely low education or are often even illiterate, even though local job markets tend to require education, speaking local languages etc). Last year there were much more than million asylum seekers.

Of course Trump is not perfect. He uses ruder language than I would in many things. But he seems to be one of the few who understands that uncontrolled immigration is going to destroy Europe if it is let to continue for much longer. And that issue is much more important than having gay marriage accepted or not. What good does gay marriage do, if within couple generations there will be sharia law which totally prohibits homosexuality or if there are routinely violent attacks towards gays.

Re: Just what the world needs

[gay358]

He's not as bad as many Republicans on this particular topic, no, but he's hardly pro-gay.

He is not as enlighted on this issue as I wish he was, but I can with those issues. And I think there is some clear pro-gay elements as well. He has supported AIDS charities in 80s and 90s, seems to have gay friends and he has supported amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act to "include a ban of discrimination based on sexual orientation.".

And if I am not mistaken, Hillary is not completely spotless on gay issues either:

Hillary Clinton's Gay-Marriage Problem

Re: Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes Milo dangerous is that idiots believe his garbage and he takes them to the bank. He shows others how you can hustle idiots by putting on a show for them.

Re: Just what the world needs

[TooManyNames]

I love how someone moderated you as a troll; it's pretty evident that you tapped into their view of heresy. I mean, you simply stated a reasoned disagreement with the way some people are often portrayed -- didn't even trot out the SJW label -- but that's apparently enough to warrant troll status.

This intellectual intolerance is just pathetic.

Re: Just what the world needs

[Bing Tsher E]

Indeed. The seething hatred of people who don't conform to the prescribed viewpoint is certainly detrimental. For instance all the hatred directed toward, for instance, Thiel, for not toeing the line of the Gay Liberation agenda. The hatred of jeering protesters at political rallies and events.

Re: Just what the world needs

[TooManyNames]

He has, as he does with most things, sat on both sides of the fence. In the anti-gay column, he has:

* Supported North Carolina's effort to stop transgender people from using the bathroom matching their identity

Hey wait a second. I thought that transgender people are the gender that they identify with. I mean, gender is a social construct, after all, right? While some transgender people may harbor an attraction toward the same gender they're transitioning to, many don't. Lumping all transgender people into the gay community is pretty damn disrespectful, both to the transgender community, and to the gay community, is it not? <outrage>You fucking bigot!<\outrage>

Re: Just what the world needs

[quax]

I think it's safe to say that Peter Thiel will be fine.

But just for the record, I don't hate the man, I am just disappointed. Not only for this, but also for using his money to destroy Gawker, while trying to keep this out of the public eye.

He is not the man I thought he was.

Re: Just what the world needs

[_xeno_]

Why? Destroying Gawker is probably the single most noble thing he's ever done. It almost makes up for founding PayPal.

Gawker is a shitty, entirely morally bankrupt "news" website and needed to be destroyed. If every one of Gawker's website vanished tomorrow, the world would be a better place. No one will miss Gawker.

Re: Just what the world needs

[quax]

To destroy any kind of journalism by clandestinely funding litigation is also morally bankrupt.

The way to destroy a media site is by denying it clicks.

Re: Just what the world needs

[gweilo8888]

Fair enough. Mea culpa, but at least I'm not telling them which bathroom they have to use.

Re: Just what the world needs

[gweilo8888]

You're fine with him deciding that if he dies, he should be replaced by one of the most openly anti-gay men in the country? I'm not.

Re: Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

To destroy any kind of journalism by clandestinely funding litigation is also morally bankrupt.

The problem is the victim wasn't able to fund the lawsuit by himself. That is a weakness of the legal system, and Thiel helped make up for it in this case.

Re: Just what the world needs

[quax]

If you read the Forbes article that I linked. you will realize that the story is much more sinister than that.

Re: Just what the world needs

[Rakarra]

It absolutely does not matter -- once you refuse a judge's order to take down content, you're screwed. Gawker would have been just fine if they'd removed their illegally-gained content.

Re: Just what the world needs

[Rakarra]

As an European I haven't been following all the details, but if I am not mistaken, Trump is actually relatively supportive towards gays

Trump just announced as his Vice President a governor who openly advocates forcing "gay conversion therapy" as a biblical method to cure homosexuality.

Re: Just what the world needs

[Ol Olsoc]

In other words, they don't want to be seen as a homosexual Hugh Hefner, which oddly seems to become the default behavior of openly gay people.

Since when? You hanging out in those campus bathrooms some of these people frequent? I know a fair number of gays, and they are all in monogamous relationships. Of course there are some sleazy people who are gay. There certainly are also enough sleazeballs who are confirmed heterosexuals. That's because there are some sleazy humans, regardless of where they want to put their parts.

Theil seems to want to be in the "Yes I'm attracted to the same sex. Next subject." category, same with other famous people like James Rhandi.

What bothers me is why this is largely viewed as self loathing in the media.

The problem, as always, is that the Republican party, after all of their issues with gays, including at least one ballot initiative to kill them outright, miraculously shows up with a house gay guy. Just like with a house hispanic, or house black or house woman.

It's a problem of perception. It isn't a matter of trotting out Sarah Palin, so you can say "We are the party that loves women, and stand for their rights!" or Theil so you can say "We are so inclusive of Gays!", or Rubio and declare that The Republican Party is embracing Hispanics and the country will see the incredible love and warmth you have for all citizens

It's all of those nasty ass things y'all do in between the treatment you give them in between oh so transparently trotting out the tokens.

Like your accusing almost all gays of a sleazy lifestyle - except of course Theil.

Re: Just what the world needs

[mattwarden]

Like calling every black conservative ever "Uncle Tom"?

Re: Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes Milo dangerous is that idiots believe his garbage and he takes them to the bank. He shows others how you can hustle idiots by putting on a show for them.

So you are a bigot then?

Taking a move from the leftist playbook. I am I doing this right?

Re: Just what the world needs

[mattwarden]

I agree with you, but I find it rich to watch the left suggest that the courts shouldn't be used, and we should have faith in freedom and market forces

Re: Just what the world needs

[dnaumov]

Gawker could've considered not breaking the law in the first place (meaning there would be no legal case to begin with). Secondly, after they got caught and taken out to court, it takes a really special kind of stupid to ignore a judge's order. Had they obeyed it, chances are they would've been given a slap on the wrist. Gawker had it long time coming.

Re: Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are a bigot then?

Close... per the leftist playbook he's a homophobe.

If the last 8 years have taught us anything, it's that criticizing a member of a protected group for *any reason* has nothing to do with the stated reason (not that a stated reason was actually mentioned above) but is automatically about that persons membership in that class and an attack on all members.

Disagree with Obama's tax policies? Racist!
Don't think Hillary should be President? You are just a sexist who hates all women.
Prefer that we have an orderly immigration system? Anti-Hispanic racist!
Express concern over someone driving truck into a tourist area in France? Islamophobe!

So to the AC who says that Milo is simply hustling idiots I ask this: Why do you hate gay men so much?

Re: Just what the world needs

[quax]

On 1 to 10 hate scale that barely registers at a 3.

Re: Just what the world needs

[quax]

I don't consider myself particularly left. Have strong sympathy for Libertarians in the Ron Paul mold, hence my disappointment with Thiel.

Where I break with orthodox US Libertarians is that I don't regard markets as a natural state that just happens by itself. You need limited government to create them, and to ensure they keep working.

Re: Just what the world needs

[quax]

You seem to be under the impression that there was just one court case. There wasn't.

Gawker is an awful outlet, and where the cases have merits of course they deserved to get hammered. But this is not what this was about. Read the Forbes article. This was a concerted effort to drive them out of business, once and for all, because Thiel felt slighted.

Very different thing.

Re: Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

It's disgusting and regressive. The way liberals coddle and insult the dignity of homosexuals is off-putting.

Re: Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

His sexual preference as with the entire GLBT movement is just a distraction.

https://youtu.be/iPis68U7bdo

The guy is just a nut. A nut with a lot of money pulling a lot of strings.

Re:Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

Peter Thiel is the 1%. He doesn't give two shits about anyone other than himself. Laws do not apply to his ilk, so the Republican Party's anti-homosexual agenda is meaningless to him. All he cares about is money and power, and the Republicans are slightly more likely to be the winners in this election round.

Re: Just what the world needs

[shutdown -p now]

Trump has been ambiguous on it - as he usually is when he doesn't have a specific plan in mind. However, conveniently for all of us, GOP has just adopted an official party platform - and it's very consistently social conservative on LGBT rights (and pretty much everything else you can think of). It's so extreme, it prompted the (tiny) pro-gay faction inside GOP to go all out denouncing it.

Re: Just what the world needs

[rcharbon]

"Relatively supportive" is an incredibly low bar in this case, where the Republican platform comes close to calling for gays to be stoned by the righteous.

Re: Just what the world needs

[ncc74656]

To destroy any kind of journalism by clandestinely funding litigation is also morally bankrupt.

Good thing, then, that Gawker isn't a journalism operation.

Re: Just what the world needs

[quax]

Clearly journalists don't agree with you on that.

Freedom dies by thousands cuts.

Re: Just what the world needs

[lsatenstein]

As an European I haven't been following all the details, but if I am not mistaken, Trump is actually relatively supportive towards gays

Trump just announced as his Vice President a governor who openly advocates forcing "gay conversion therapy" as a biblical method to cure homosexuality.

Trump took a dull boring evangelist as a running mate. When you put the potential VP beside Trump, Trump comes out like a shining star.

Re: Just what the world needs

[mattwarden]

You may be surprised to learn you are not breaking from libertarians at all. At least based on your description.

Re: Just what the world needs

[quax]

Glad to hear it, although my European social sensibilities will probably define the limit for government much further out than most Libertarians will be comfortable with.

In a nutshell, I want governments to create the framework for a market driven meritocracy, no limit on how far top achievers can go, while ensuring that the bottom feeders don't have to sell their dignity just to survive.

Re: Just what the world needs

[micahraleigh]

How do you forensically determine how much hate someone has?

Is it as simple as measuring how much someone disagrees with you?

Re: Just what the world needs

[micahraleigh]

Are you talking about how the US Congress is openly debating treating climate denial as a crime?

Because I don't remember the GOP pushing legislation or even talking about locking up homosexuals.

Re: Just what the world needs

[mattwarden]

Limited social safety net is okay with most libertarians. The problem is that self-serving politicians always promise to grow the safety net to buy votes (game theory means this is a good idea because cost is amortized across many more people than its benefits). Every Western country has allowed their safety net to grow beyond the purpose you describe. It's counterproductive as it creates more poverty (though that poverty is more comfortable).

Re: Just what the world needs

[quax]

Remarkably, in Germany the party that grew the safety net the most in the past, also cut it back under chancellor SchrÃder, making Germany more competitive again, and massively reducing unemployment. Yet, unsurprisingly the electorate did not reward his party for it.

This seems appropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

Peter Thiel is well known to like dicks and assholes, so speaking at a Trump event is right up his alley.

Re:This seems appropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

right up his alley.

Maybe that's where Trump is headed.

I want to like Donald.

[amiga3D]

I really want to like Donald but he makes it so fucking hard. He has so many bad points that it's gotten to the point I keep telling myself "at least he's not Hilliary, he's not Hilliary." I swear I hope a third candidate gets enough traction to make them viable.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I really want to like Donald

Just out of curiosity, why?

I hate Hillary with a passion, but any sentence out of Trump's mouth makes her look like Gandhi in comparison.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[parallel_prankster]

Its fashionable to hate Hillary among Sanders fans. These folks always says Hillary is the same as Trump or worse. I am so tired of this shit. Its like they have no idea what he is saying or what the Republican party has been up to for the last 5 years! I hate Hillary as well, but like you said, she is Gandhi compared to Trump and any nonsense that is going to come out of the RNC this week. Has this moron Thiel looked at their anti-gay agenda even?

Re:I want to like Donald.

[techno-vampire]

Has this moron Thiel looked at their anti-gay agenda even?

I'm sure he has. I'm also sure that unlike you he understands that this is just something that they had to put in to keep the Religious Right from bolting, along with all of that anti-abortion stuff. Nobody in politics expects those planks to go anywhere, but they insist on them to keep their more naive followers (who don't understand) happy.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Kohath]

...what the Republican party has been up to for the last 5 years!

What did the Republican Party do in the last 5 years? I literally can't think of a single thing they accomplished or any change the Republican Party made to anything during that time.

Are you just complaining about "talk" you don't like? If so, then stop listening -- your life will improve.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Fire_Wraith]

That, or he just doesn't care, because his money insulates him from any of the negative impacts - and he believes that their policies related to his money are far more important to him. It's a cynical/selfish calculation, but that doesn't make it irrational. Not everyone votes solely based on just one issue.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its fashionable to hate Hillary, period. I personally don't hate her at all and the idea that I "should" is just bullshit propaganda. The controversies around her have been massively overblown. How many fucking times have the Republicans investigated Benghazi? Far more times (and spending much more tax dollars) than the government spent investigating 9/11. Fuck, Michael "I make movies for teenage boys" Bay even made a movie about it, but he never made a movie about 9/11. Then there is the email bullshit, she used exactly the same system that previous *republican* administrations did, and regardless as this is slashdot I assume people here are smart enough to know that email is in no way a secure messaging protocol. It doesn't matter who hosts your server, as soon as you hit "send" that email may well travel half way around the world before it gets to its destination, getting copied and stored by god-knows-who. For all the talk that folks on sites like slashdot and reddit make for "thinking rationally", why the hell is it so many seem utterly incapable of doing that when it comes to Clinton? How, for example, can you bridge the ideology gap between voting for Bernie Sanders (a socialist, who agrees with Hillary Clinton on a wide swath of issues) or Ron Paul (a staunch libertarian) and then switching to Donald Trump, a guy who has espoused no consistent stance on almost anything and has flippantly proposed dozens of blatantly unconstitutional actions? The mind fucking boggles.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its fashionable to hate Hillary among Sanders fans.

It's also the true feeling of many Democrats who have no particularly liking for Sanders. Disliking Hillary Clinton isn't necessarily a comparative emotion, it's one that can be tied innately to her and her actions.

Re: I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

He was invited to speak. Should he have refused? Wouldn't this be an opportunity for a gay person to speak to skeptics? Or is conversation not possible....just LGBT hate of others with a different view. Frankly, this kind of opportunity and contact seems like the kind of engagement we should all be praising! Of course, if LGBT issues alignment is your litmus test for candidates......

Re: I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

This.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[PopeRatzo]

What did the Republican Party do in the last 5 years? I literally can't think of a single thing they accomplished

Don't sell this, the 114th Congress short. They did accomplish something. They passed Public Law 114-152, the National Bison Legacy Act which names the bison as the national mammal of the United States.

They also voted to name no fewer than 27 post offices after people you've never heard of (probably donors).

And they voted to repeal Obamacare for the 60th, 61st, 62nd and 63rd times.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of the people who will vote for Trump won't do it because they necessarily like him. They'll do it because they are rebelling against the establishment politicians and the MSM. The more the MSM and the establishment bash Trump, the more votes Trump will get. Trump increases his vote share by spending almost no money on his campaign. It's unprecedented.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should quit viewing politics as a pro sports team fan. That's the first key in not being a monkey.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Kohath]

That explains the exclamation point then. He must really hate bison.

Re: I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gary Johnson is now polling around 10%

Re:I want to like Donald.

[LynnwoodRooster]

Who doesn't hate bison? It's become a hipster staple like kale and arugula... Not like in the old days when it was "weird beef".

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG whats wrong with you! Didn't you read about her e-mails! EMAILS AND BENGHAZI EMGAIL BEN HAZY! AHHHH! *right wing head explosion*

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Jeremi]

he understands that this is just something that they had to put in to keep the Religious Right from bolting, along with all of that anti-abortion stuff.

You know what else they'll have to do in order to keep the religious right from bolting? Follow through on the anti-gay and anti-abortion stuff.

When people tell you who they are, believe them. The Republican platform is the document in which the Republican Party tells you who it is. Believe it.

Re: I want to like Donald.

[LynnwoodRooster]

In reality, this shows the tolerance of the GOP. They'll have debate, they'll welcome discourse with people generally on the other side of an issue. Can you imagine a pro-life or anti-same-sex-marriage speaker at the Democrat convention?

Diversity isn't just about genetics or sexual preference - it's also about beliefs and values. The Democrats are about as anti-diversity as you can get.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[roman_mir]

Gary Johnson is at 12% in national polls, this is across all parties. It is quite a rise for him, in the last elections when he ran as a Libertarian he barely registered 1% (1.2 million votes). 12% is 12 times better, 1200% better since the last time. He is a viable candidate in these elections, he is on the ballots of all 50 States.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pure selfish self interest. Hillary has attacked every one of my interests over her career so I guess I get to vote for the turd sandwich.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[mattwarden]

What negative impacts would he suffer due to being gay that he does not suffer due to the insulation of his money?

Re:I want to like Donald.

[mattwarden]

What actions are you afraid of? 2 constitutional amendments? This is an honest question. I have asked this honest question many times, both in this form and when I'm beating up the religious right for demanding actions.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

What did the Republican Party do in the last 5 years?

The purpose of government is not to "do stuff". In general, the less they do, the better.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

He is a viable candidate in these elections

Only as a spoiler for whichever candidate is hated by more of their party's base. He won't win.

Not that there's anything wrong with a principled vote against both of the mainstream candidates. But don't delude yourself into thinking that Johnson can actually win. At best, a significant Libertarian vote will inform the "major" parties that they have to change their direction (i.e. stop nominating criminals and clowns).

Re:I want to like Donald.

[ClickOnThis]

Have you ever had bison? It's delicious.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[iMadeGhostzilla]

> Just out of curiosity, why?

From my perspective -- he is childish, energetic and entertaining. Even his enemies often profit from crossing paths with him. Downside is he can say things that incite some of his supporters to say or do ugly things. Another is he's not much of a leader you can trust. The main upside is you can learn something from him -- how to convince people to accept your point of view using emotions. By contrast, I feel I have nothing valuable to learn from Hillary, and she's not a leader I can trust. Hillary brings nothing to the table.

Re: I want to like Donald.

[ClickOnThis]

In reality, this shows the tolerance of the GOP. They'll have debate, they'll welcome discourse with people generally on the other side of an issue.

And then they'll just go on the way they did before, working against the concerns of those same people. This is not tolerance, it's pandering.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[ArmoredDragon]

I don't think it's relevant whether he has money or not. This is another one of those "once it's here, it's not going away any time soon" kind of things. SCOTUS's ruling on gay marriage isn't going to be reversed any easier than Roe v Wade would ever be. It's thus no longer an issue. Sure, people will speak loudly and often about it, but that won't make it any more relevant.

Besides, among republicans I've seen anti-2nd amendment and pro-choice. Just because somebody differs on one or even two issues doesn't mean they're required to differ on everything else too. I mean fuck, look at Bru...er Cai...or whatever Jenner's view on this issue is. The expectation that they MUST share ALL of the same views as their party is the whole reason we're stuck in this two party rut to begin with.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

At best, a significant Libertarian vote will inform the "major" parties that they have to change their direction (i.e. stop nominating criminals and clowns).

No, the Libertarian party can do even more. If Gary Johnson prevents both Trump and Clinton from receiving 50% of the electoral college, then nobody wins the election! See

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/06/01/gary-johnson-12-amendment-electoral-college-elections-2016-column/85170378/

Re: I want to like Donald.

[melted]

I think he's a stooge for the Clinton campaign to make her the only real candidate. I especially think so after he picked a lunatic for his running mate.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its fashionable to hate Hillary among Sanders fans. These folks always says Hillary is the same as Trump or worse. I am so tired of this shit. Its like they have no idea what he is saying or what the Republican party has been up to for the last 5 years! I hate Hillary as well, but like you said, she is Gandhi compared to Trump and any nonsense that is going to come out of the RNC this week. Has this moron Thiel looked at their anti-gay agenda even?

Five? Try thirty. For decades now the Republican Party has been running on the platform: "Government doesn't work! Elect me so I can prove it to you!" Given that their platform's success depends on government failing the people, is it any wonder that every year that a Republican has any power at all is marked by a decrease in the effectiveness of government?

Re:I want to like Donald.

[LynnwoodRooster]

WOOSH.

Re: I want to like Donald.

[LynnwoodRooster]

Is that why there are pro-choice GOP Governors, just pandering? How many anti-abortion Democrat Governors are there?

Re: I want to like Donald.

[AuMatar]

It's not like that means there won't be a president. In that case, the house votes with 1 vote per state. Which given the current house and reasonable assumption they vote party lines means trump wins

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Jeremi]

I didn't say I was afraid of anything; what I said was that the Republican Party platform is exactly that: the platform of the Republican Party.

You can be for it or against it, but if the parent poster is going through the document and saying "well this part is real, but this other part is only a meaningless sop to placate a constituency and would never actually be enacted", then I think he is only fooling himself. What you see is what you'll get.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, even if the republicans fail to achieve each plank in its entirety, they are likely to put enough effort in that direction to achieve something even if that something is just to stymie the people they are trying to repress.

Remember how Roe v Wade was settled law 40 years ago? Yet republicans are constantly trying to chip away at it with all kinds of bullshit that takes years to wind its way to the supreme court and be shut down. In the meantime they've fucked over a lot of people. If they succeed in defunding planned parenthood's non-abortion operations (because abortions were defunded decades ago) that's going to fuck over millions of people, including babies whose mothers couldn't get sufficient prenatal care.

Don't count on them to half-ass something, because even half an ass is too much damn ass.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you understand that the majority of people on this planet would either be dead (of starvation) of slaves, without government - (and sometimes with, when it fails to do its job)?

The PRIMARY purpose of government is to manage resources (owned by a (rich) minority) for the benefit of the majority - it started with farming and has since encompassed a lot more.

Why is humanity struggling - because this is an ongoing war that the minority are currently WINNING. If you don't LIKE government, in general, then kill yourself and get it over with, for the majority of humanity will be better off without you. If you don't like SOME of what government does, how and why, then how much of it do you truly understand? Again, most of the problems we have with governments, stem from the rich minority using it for their own purpose, against the majority.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[quax]

How ironic. To this day I can't get myself to dislike the Donald. It's Trump the politician that I cannot stand, because his campaigns runs on resentments and stoking hate.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

*or slaves (duh)

Re:I want to like Donald.

[bheerssen]

But in Thiel's case, it would seem his sole issue is his money. I can't think of any other reason someone in his position would support the Republican Party.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[quantaman]

For all the talk that folks on sites like slashdot and reddit make for "thinking rationally", why the hell is it so many seem utterly incapable of doing that when it comes to Clinton? How, for example, can you bridge the ideology gap between voting for Bernie Sanders (a socialist, who agrees with Hillary Clinton on a wide swath of issues) or Ron Paul (a staunch libertarian) and then switching to Donald Trump, a guy who has espoused no consistent stance on almost anything and has flippantly proposed dozens of blatantly unconstitutional actions? The mind fucking boggles.

I think it's just confirmation bias. I think in the mid-90s the right became really uncomfortable with the idea of a first lady exerting political influence. They figured that was going way outside her role and trying to usurp her husband's power so they started labelling her as lying and manipulative and really haven't stopped.

The thing with repeating labels like that is they don't really need to be accurate, you just need to keep repeating them and people eventually figure there's something to it (otherwise why would you be saying it?).

So now everybody is convinced that Hillary is really manipulative and deceptive, throw in something like the email scandal and if you already assume she's lying then it just re-enforces the whole narrative.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Kohath]

The majority of people are dead.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Applehu Akbar]

"Gary Johnson is at 12% in national polls [redstate.com]"

If Trump really steps in the deep stuff during the campaign, Johnson may actually have a chance.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Applehu Akbar]

"If Gary Johnson prevents both Trump and Clinton from receiving 50% of the electoral college, then nobody wins the election!"

Remember 1992, when a Ferengi running as an outsider managed to deprive Clinton and Bush of a popular majority. It was the electoral college that decided it, though.

Re: I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically government is responsible for the deaths of billions of people.

You are a fucking moron.

Re: I want to like Donald.

[avatar avatar]

Swap their names and I'm in the same boat ("at least she's not Trump")...Seriously, I'm praying for a third party. Give me a Perot, a Nader, a Sanders, a Gary Johnson, ANYONE with discernable principles. This election more than ever feels like a complete failure of the system.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

> she used exactly the same system that previous *republican* administrations did

Name one other politician of either party who hosted their own email server. You lying fuck.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[markdavis]

>"Besides, among republicans I've seen anti-2nd amendment and pro-choice."

Exactly. It seems popular here (and many places) to think that all Republicans are identical and believe the same things. They don't. Many Republicans do not support anti-abortion. Many Republicans support certain gun control. Many Republicans do not push a religious agenda of any sort. Also, despite the summary and prevailing theory, being anti-gay marriage doesn't mean being anti-gay nor does it automatically make it a religious issue. There is probably more variation in the Republican party than any other at this point (and one reason for things like the Tea Party splinter).

In the same light, not all Democrats think we should go further in debt, should prevent private gun ownership, have a forever-growing Fed, or that we would should tax everyone out of existence.

And it also doesn't mean that all Libertarians think we should have no national defense, have no regulations, should have no federal government, or should allow corporations to rape the environment.

>"The expectation that they MUST share ALL of the same views as their party is the whole reason we're stuck in this two party rut to begin with."

It is one of many reasons... of course the biggest reason we are stuck in a rut is because of a stupid two-party system, which can never change without changing to a ranked voting system... which itself can never change because the two-parties won't allow it.

So we are always stuck with voters having to pick between what they think is the lesser of two evils OR vote AGAINST the party they are most afraid of.... and usually fueled by single issues such as those I listed above.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Fire_Wraith]

For one, he's a lot less likely to be in need of anti-discrimination laws. He's not exactly afraid of being fired for being gay. If some bakery refuses to serve him, he can probably just buy the bakery itself outright, or ten others like it. He's probably not worried about being beaten up for being gay because he can hire a massive personal security detail. Money of the kind he's got carries a -LOT- of privileges.

It's probably easier to think of him as someone who politically is rich and libertarian first, and gay only second or third at best.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Ryanrule]

what interests? fag drags?

Re:I want to like Donald.

[ThatsMyNick]

I am curious what you learnt from Obama and Bush. If either of those are leaders you trust. Genuinely curious.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[phantomfive]

What actions are you afraid of? 2 constitutional amendments? This is an honest question.

On abortion, they will likely appoint judges to the supreme court who will reverse some decisions on abortion.

On gay marriage, they will probably do nothing because gay marriage is more popular, being against it is a losing proposition now.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Rakarra]

Tastes too "gamey" for me to get into.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Rakarra]

Then there is the email bullshit, she used exactly the same system that previous *republican* administrations did,

100% false. Rice did not use email, and Powell did not use a server that he or his staff operated.
But my problem is not even that she used a server -- it's that every time someone asks her about this, she lies.
"It was allowed." (It wasn't)
"My predecessors did this." (they didn't)
"I didn't receive classified information." (over 100 documents...)
"Those documents were inappropriately classified after." (the 100+ documents were classified AT THE TIME).

She just keeps feeding into this mantra that she lies and is untrustworthy. No one else needs to paint this picture -- she is doing this all on her own stating easily provable lies. She's not total absolute 100% pants-on-fire like Trump is, but she makes it really difficult for anyone to vote FOR her.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Rakarra]

I think it's just confirmation bias. I think in the mid-90s the right became really uncomfortable with the idea of a first lady exerting political influence. They figured that was going way outside her role and trying to usurp her husband's power so they started labelling her as lying and manipulative and really haven't stopped.

What, they didn't mind it when Nancy controlled Ronald Reagan's schedule?

Re:I want to like Donald.

[drinkypoo]

I give no shits about Benghazi, but I do care that Clinton deleted records she was required to retain. I also care that Bush did it. I cannot vote for Trump, but I also cannot vote for Clinton. Sanders polls better than Clinton against Trump — many polls in fact say Clinton cannot win — Clinton voters are spoilers for Trump. Sanders may agree with Clinton on a broad range of issues, but the places where he disagrees are significant.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[drinkypoo]

So now everybody is convinced that Hillary is really manipulative and deceptive, throw in something like the email scandal and if you already assume she's lying then it just re-enforces the whole narrative.

Hillary is no more manipulative or deceptive than the average politician, but that's sufficiently damning. I want an above-average politician, not to maintain the status quo.

The hilarious thing is the people who think that Trump won't support the status quo.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

Incredibly, Congress passed the first comprehensive overhaul of chemical regulation in 40 years.

Re: I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gays can't be racist islamaphobes who want tax cuts for billionaires?

Re:I want to like Donald.

[mattwarden]

I can't speak for everywhere, obviously, but here in Texas about half of my friends are lesbians and none of them have ever expressed fear of being fired for being gay. They have, however, joked about being less likely to be fired for fear of lawsuit.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[mattwarden]

As for the bakery issue, it's amazing how people can tell themselves they support civil rights and then use that very argument to demand the government to force someone to give their labor to someone else against their will. Somewhere, you folks on the left forgot that freedom is about permitting the KKK to call black people animals, skinheads to call Jews various things I will not repeat, and -- yes -- permitting a business owner to refuse service for reasons you think are unfair. Especially when the "negative impact" in this case is non-existent, other than perhaps hurt feelings.

Re: I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

Every politician has a private email address that they use to take things "offline".

Re:I want to like Donald.

[_Sharp'r_]

Next you'll be trying to tell us people are actually individuals, not just Borg-like members of various collectives determined by their skin color or Party affiliation. You may have to report for re-education if you work in a government, media or academic setting.

On a related topic, basically for at least the next four years we're screwed in terms of having a decent President, so I finally decided to vote based on a longer view of things and try and get the best new Supreme Court justices. Those will have much longer lasting effect than what one President otherwise does.

Re: I want to like Donald.

[ToddInSF]

Katlin Jenner for instance....

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Kohath]

I can't think of any other reason someone in his position would support the Republican Party.

Republicans are probably a lot nicer to him than Democrats. Would Democrats invite him to speak at their convention?

He also has a long history of supporting free speech and opposing speech codes and criminalization of speech as "hate speech". Just this week Hillary announced her support for a constitutional amendment repealing free speech for specific people.

Before you post about your failure to think of things, maybe try a little harder.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Kohath]

I think you mean Ben Kingsley. Gandhi actually believed in things. Hillary can usually succeed at reciting words from a script, like an actor playing a role. You like the way her character's lines are written better than Trump's.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[hublan]

100% false. Rice did not use email, and Powell did not use a server that he or his staff operated.
But my problem is not even that she used a server -- it's that every time someone asks her about this, she lies.

The said "previous ... administrations". Honestly, how short is your memory?

Re:I want to like Donald.

[shutdown -p now]

Not all Republicans hold these views, but most do.

And furthermore, one curious thing that the polls highlight, is that Republicans are far closer to each other on all these issues than Democrats. Which is not really surprising - they have been the doom-and-gloom "we're losing our country" party for the past few decades, and so they're much more prone to wagon circling.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[shutdown -p now]

On gay marriage, they have changed their tune from "it's evil and should be banned" (remember DOMA, and all the talk about the marriage amendment back in 90s?) to "let the states decide". As Republicans always do on every matter where they find themselves outnumbered on the federal level.

Also, they really want to overturn Roe, and the only way they can do so at this point is by appointing a very specific type of judges to SCOTUS. Such judges are very likely to overturn Obergefell, as well.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[phantomfive]

On gay marriage, they have changed their tune from "it's evil and should be banned" (remember DOMA, and all the talk about the marriage amendment back in 90s?) to "let the states decide".

Yeah, that's why I don't think they will do anything worth caring about (I blame democrats too for DOMA though, it was a bipartisan effort. Thus I blame America as well, since they were doing the will of the people).

Also, they really want to overturn Roe, and the only way they can do so at this point is by appointing a very specific type of judges to SCOTUS. Such judges are very likely to overturn Obergefell, as well.

That is a very real possibility.

The main thing I'm worried about is that one party or the other getting too much power......not because they'll do something ideological (the ideological places are where the American people tend to watch most closely), but because they'll do something utterly braindead. Why not double the national deficit? Why not invade another country? I don't know what it will be, but it will be something stupid.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[iMadeGhostzilla]

Not much. Obama has good speaking skills but that's not something that can be emulated easily nor does it seem to go particularly far. As for Bush, I bought his autobiography thinking there may be some nugget of insight here and there but after about a fifth of the book I found none and gave up. The stories were empty and entirely predictable from his profile. The amount of trust I have in either is not very high, I see them roughly as barely competent to run a country that is generally doing well and has a lot of room for error.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[ausekilis]

It is one of many reasons... of course the biggest reason we are stuck in a rut is because of a stupid two-party system, which can never change without changing to a ranked voting system... which itself can never change because the two-parties won't allow it.

So we are always stuck with voters having to pick between what they think is the lesser of two evils OR vote AGAINST the party they are most afraid of.... and usually fueled by single issues such as those I listed above.

I'd mod this up, but you're already at 5 ;-). This is what we need, some way to move away from this Kang vs Kodos scenario. "Either way, your planet is doomed". All we really need is for one candidate outside of the Dems and Repubs to get 5% of the popular vote. It's also why I'm voting for Gary Johnson. Not because I think he will win, but because I think he's a better candidate than either Trump or Clinton. Honestly, I had hoped for Trump to run as an Independent since I think he's got the popularity to shake out a third party. Maybe his venom on the microphone will get enough conservatives to jump ship and form another party (though I doubt that... they love their solidarity, even if the head is a crackpot).

Moving slightly offtopic, but I hope folks find it interesting and it continues your thought on gov spending. Here's a graph of the national deficit by president. Note that blue downward curve between Pres. Bush 1 and 2. While it's true that each Bush had their own tour in Iraq, they both spent money like it was going out of style despite being of the "no big government, fiscal responsiblity!" republican camp. Pres. Clinton managed to turn the tide, but is still one of the least liked, highest paid ex-Presidents. Obama, as of 2014, hasn't been doing that well either... Though the latter part of Bush II and Obama are due to the recession.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[DarthVain]

Yet history has shown that almost every republican government has spent more and increased debt and grown government than their democrat counterparts. This is what I really don't understand about American politics, their ideology in no way mirrors reality.

So far as I can tell the republican party is made up of rich people who want to stay rich, and others too stupid to realize they are voting against their own self interest (social issues aside like gun control, abortion, and gay marriage).

Anyway as you say, I'm sure the same (if not more) variation exists within the democratic party as well.

I think (unless it is a complete disaster, like Trump making a gay joke or something after) it is a good think regardless, perhaps give the republicans a bit more diversity. Because if you think about it, the more democratic types that join the republicans, really the more centrist and representative they will become in the end.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

She is very much like Gandhi.

Signed,
Civilization Player.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[houghi]

And that is why a bi-party system is a bad choice.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Rakarra]

Hillary Clinton was talking about her predecessors. That's previous Secretaries of State, because of course, different departments will have different communications rules. We only have four previous Secretaries to compare to in the era of email at the State Department.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

being anti-gay marriage doesn't mean being anti-gay

Wait, what? That was pretty glib of you to try to sandwich that into the middle of insightful commentary.

Being anti-gay-marriage is anti-gay. Anti-gay-marriage sentiment supports a position of denying something to one class of people that another class of people currently enjoys. Not cool.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[ncc74656]

I hate Hillary with a passion, but any sentence out of Trump's mouth makes her look like Gandhi in comparison.

Such as, "At this point, what difference does it make?" Oh, wait...

How about, "Who's going to find out? They're trash...nobody's going to believe them!" (That was Hillary, talking about the women her lecherous husband has assaulted over the years.)

"Yeah, I got him off. So what? Who cares? We got the evidence thrown out, so he walked. I mean, sure, we knew he did it, but it didn't matter." (That was Hillary, talking about a child rapist she helped avoid charges.)

"I believe the primary role of the state is to teach, train, and raise children. Parents have a secondary role." (That was Hillary in It Takes a Village.)

Do I need to continue?

Re:I want to like Donald.

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Such as, "At this point, what difference does it make?" Oh, wait...

What's your point? Perhaps you missed the part where I said "I hate Hillary with a passion"?

Seriously, what is your point? Did you even have one? Or did you want to play Dueling Quotes? Okay, here are a few from your hero:

“You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass.”

“I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

"My IQ is one of the highest — and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure; it's not your fault."

“The beauty of me is that I’m very rich.”

“I have a great relationship with the blacks.”

“No, I’m not into anal.”

“Hillary is smart, tough and a very nice person, and so is her husband. Bill Clinton was a great President."

Re:I want to like Donald.

[markdavis]

>"Being anti-gay-marriage is anti-gay. Anti-gay-marriage sentiment supports a position of denying something to one class of people that another class of people currently enjoys."

I stand by what I said. I could make the same argument that if marriage grants things to married people that single people don't enjoy, then being pro-any-marriage is anti-single or anti-asexual. Denying something to another TWO classes of people. Is that cool?

Marriage is an invention and completely arbitrary. It is very possible to grant the same protections and call it something else... and believe it or not, a lot of people object to "gay marriage" simply because of the word "marriage" (since that has a lot of historical and religious meaning) and would have been fine with "civil union" or something else. And still others that think the Fed is not who should decide what marriage is... it is not in the Constitution as a Federal power, so it SHOULD be at the state level. So it isn't that those people are necessarily anti-gay. That is all I was saying. I probably should have worded it better like this "being anti-gay marriage doesn't necessarily mean being anti-gay".

BTW- should we all support marriage between three people? How about four? If not, isn't that anti-poly-whatever? That's not cool either.

Personally, I think the whole concept of marriage is obsolete. Society has pretty much proven it now. The vast majority of marriages end in failure and usually divorce and most people seem to have no interest in marrying before having children. I think perhaps it is time the government should just get out of the relationship-defining business completely (just like they should stay out of the bedroom, and many other parts of our lives).

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

At least Trump appears to wear those pants well.

Re:I want to like Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

I stand by what I said. I could make the same argument that if marriage grants things to married people that single people don't enjoy, then being pro-any-marriage is anti-single or anti-asexual. Denying something to another TWO classes of people. Is that cool?

Some people have tried to bring that up, and sometimes it has been used to invalidate certain restrictions or laws. See Utah's anti-cohabitation laws. However, there are times where circumstances are somewhat different.

Marriage is an invention and completely arbitrary.

Yes (though I might quibble over the use of the term "invention" I'm sure we could come up with some acceptable word to suit both of us) and no, as marriage is not completely arbitrary, but a considered and reasoned choice. There are variations and alterations, but to claim something is completely arbitrary, no, you won't get that.

It is very possible to grant the same protections and call it something else...

Yes, there are a variety of languages in use, so technically true, but meaningless, since it's about the identifiable concept, and fiddling around with words in this case won't solve the root of the issue, it really won't.

and believe it or not, a lot of people object to "gay marriage" simply because of the word "marriage" (since that has a lot of historical and religious meaning) and would have been fine with "civil union" or something else.

Unfortunately, you're wrong, for two reasons. One, pretty much all of those people who you claim would be fine with civil unions, would still want to keep marriage, and two, and you may not be aware of this, but the actual attempts in many states forbade anything even equivalent to marriage under some other term such as civil unions. That's right, you can be high-minded if you want, but the reality is that many found any alternative to be unacceptable and sought to make it a matter of law.

And still others that think the Fed is not who should decide what marriage is... it is not in the Constitution as a Federal power, so it SHOULD be at the state level.

I don't know if you've noticed, but it's been a rather common pattern for bigotry and intolerance to be protected under the shield of "It's not a federal power" throughout the history of this country. It's rather sad. I digress though, since it's irrelevant.

Why? Because in this case, it's an invalid argument, because marriages? Turns out to be an inter-state and inter-national matter. That means the Full Faith and Credit Clause had to be invoked (or do you want your marriage not to legally count in another state?) AND the Treaty Clause, since many agreements with foreign powers turn upon marriage rights.

Sorry, but that argument was never sustainable, especially not with the actions taken above.

So it isn't that those people are necessarily anti-gay. That is all I was saying. I probably should have worded it better like this "being anti-gay marriage doesn't necessarily mean being anti-gay".

You can believe that, but I think you're fooling yourself.

BTW- should we all support marriage between three people? How about four? If not, isn't that anti-poly-whatever? That's not cool either.

A lot of fools try to bring this up (as well as the sibling/parent and age marks), but the thing is, there is a valid argument for precedence which it is legally sanction-able in ways that is not between same sex partners.

Not that there aren't ways around it, but numbers are different from gender.

Personally, I think the whole concept of marriage is obsolete. Society has pretty much proven it now. The vast majority of marriages end in failure and usually divorce and m

Does Pence know he's gay?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fraud stuff obviously no longer bothers him... RIP.

What kind of a convention is this?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"Other speakers will include four of Trump's children, Las Vegas casino owner Phil Ruffin, and actor and former underwear model Antonio Sabato Jr."

WTF? Is this a presidential convention or the debut of some big-titted pop star's latest crappy album?

Re:What kind of a convention is this?

[PopeRatzo]

"Other speakers will include four of Trump's children, Las Vegas casino owner Phil Ruffin, and actor and former underwear model Antonio Sabato Jr."

Even Tim Tebow backed out of speaking at the convention, and he probably could have used the paycheck.

Re:What kind of a convention is this?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Even Tim Tebow backed out of speaking at the convention

Tim Tebow ...another narcissistic, empty-headed evangelical bullshitter with not a thought in his head and nothing remotely interesting to say. He was a 'legendary' player until he wasn't, and then he promptly sank into obscurity where he belongs.

Frankly, the idea of sports figures as 'heroes' or people to be looked up to and admired is a ridiculous joke; they've every bit as flawed as Joe Average and in most cases, much more flawed. Look at all the slack-jawed goobers who worship a drunken, abusive man-baby like Johnny Manziel, and you 'll see what I mean. If I'd done half the shit he's been caught doing I'd already be in jail.

Re:What kind of a convention is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike other bullshit evangelicals, Tim Tebow drank the Kool-Aid and believe in it. Supermodel broke up with him because he believes in no sex before marriage. I don't agree with his beliefs but he is no hypocrite.

Re:What kind of a convention is this?

[ClickOnThis]

"Other speakers will include four of Trump's children, Las Vegas casino owner Phil Ruffin, and actor and former underwear model Antonio Sabato Jr."

What, no Kardashians?

Re:What kind of a convention is this?

[TroII]

He should hook up with Taylor Swift, they'd make a perfect celibate couple.

Re:What kind of a convention is this?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

What, no Kardashians?

Apparently even Donald Trump has some standards below which he will not go.

Re:What kind of a convention is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Taylor Swift is a whore though.

Re:What kind of a convention is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the Kardashians have standards below which they will not go...

Would they issue the same statement...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thiel is on their board of directors, his appearance was "personal," saying Thiel "is not attending on behalf of Facebook or to represent our views."

Would they issue the same statement if someone from their board of directors had appeared at a Clinton or Sanders event or the DNC convention? Because, you know, there are plenty of things to dislike about both of them as well.

Re:Would they issue the same statement...

[Black Parrot]

An arrogant idiot running on a ticket of bigotry isn't in the same league with "plenty of things to dislike". Most companies probably wouldn't feel any need for a disclaimer, nor to pull sponsorship for the convention.

Re:Would they issue the same statement...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are, of course, correct. It is stunning that no one is trying to denounce the idiotic bigot who's getting the Democratic nomination... She who claims ignorance at every opportunity, who hates blacks and jews, who loves rapists and craves to start more wars to kill people of a different religion or skin tone.

Re:Would they issue the same statement...

[ClickOnThis]

Citation? Or is this missing a sarcasm tag?

Peter Thiel who

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't sound like a wise man.

Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it so world-endingly important to bully other people into pretending your relationship is a marriage when they don't think it is?

Other than "SJWs bully people because that's their mission in life", I mean. Any real reasons that thinking people might relate to?

Re:Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it so world-endingly important to bully other people into pretending your relationship is a marriage when they don't think it is?

Other than "SJWs bully people because that's their mission in life", I mean. Any real reasons that thinking people might relate to?

Because if you don't gay people can't scam off benefits that married people get to make raising children easier.

Give em a few years they will be arguing to claim their cats as dependents.

Re: Marriage

[cyber-vandal]

Why is it so important to stop people doing what they want when it doesn't affect you in the slightest?

Re:Marriage

[xrayspx]

Tax benefits, hospital visitation, inheritance issues, insurance costs...and on, and on, and on.

Things that heterosexual couples take for granted that gay couples could not prior the the legalization of marriage equality nationwide. Do this: Be in a heterosexual marriage for 15 years, and follow your spouse's ambulance to the hospital. Then have a nurse deny you access to their bedside because your "marriage" offends her sensibilities. This same shit had to be fought over interracial marriage as well.

Perhaps your spouse dies in that hospital. Now have their family swoop in and take away your home, along all the money from your spouse's bank accounts. Sure, they could set up trusts and contracts and PoA's, but the point is, I'm married, and if I die, my wife by default is my next of kin. I don't have to do any of that noise, and neither should someone else just because they're gay. Inheritance and capital gains were an even worse issue.

Try having a shred of empathy for people whose circumstances are different from yours, how does that sound? Gay people don't necessarily care if people "like" their marriage, but they should be equal under the law. Statements like yours sound like they're straight out of 1963 and just repurposed from "Coloreds" to "Homos".

Re: Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't stop. Go nuts. Just leave the rest of us out of it.

Re: Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

Control.

Re: Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

I just don't get why we are fighting about this. It's a small percentage of the population. Allow civil unions with the same legal standing as currently given to marriage. Then make marriage a subset done by some churches.

If the name marriage is your hangup, frankly, go tilt at some other windmills.

Re:Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

Tax benefits, hospital visitation, inheritance issues, insurance costs...and on, and on, and on.

Lots of entirely self-focused stuff then. And rules for the sake of rules. This is the best you can do?

...[SJW moralizations and drama-pedaling deleted]...

Save it for your screenplay.

Re:Marriage

[PopeRatzo]

I find it kind of endearing when an Anonymous Coward posts a reply to himself, thinking that no one can tell it's the same person.

Re: Marriage

[PopeRatzo]

Don't stop. Go nuts. Just leave the rest of us out of it.

Nobody wants to gay-marry you. You don't have to worry.

Re:Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

Pro tip: every time you use the word 'SJW' to disparage someone's argument, it is your argument that suffers.

Seriously, dude: agree, disagree, but don't use the word 'SJW' because it's code for "I am a massive, unreconstructed blowhard"

Re: Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

Not worried. Wondering why people can't decide to get along instead of bullying each other.

The answer seems to be "SJWs have nothing else that matters to them". But then I wonder why anyone cares what SJWs say about anything. It's not like SJWs can ever be satisfied.

Re: Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

People can't get along because nitwits like you who believe in invisible men in the sky keep trying to tell the rest of us what to do.

Re: Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty cogent there, pal.

Re:Marriage

[Kjella]

Tax benefits, hospital visitation, inheritance issues, insurance costs...and on, and on, and on.

FYI that won't be enough in the long run. We had that in Norway from 1993 to 2009, homosexuals could register as "partners" but not "married" but had equal rights in all of the above, though adoption was kept out of it. Despite being quite equal in law there was a strong emotion on both sides from homosexuals that felt their love wasn't regarded as equal and from fundamentalists who were quick to point out that this was not to be understood as marriage. So in our current law there is marriage and only marriage, regardless of sex.

Re:Marriage

[Attila Dimedici]

Except of course that before "marriage equality" was imposed by the courts many states were passing domestic partnership laws. Domestic partnership laws solved all of those issues. The advantage of domestic partnership laws was that they were not limited to people in a sexual relationship. This meant that two people could share a house and other things without being sexual partner and have all of those benefits as well.
In time, it is likely that such laws would have made it feasible to remove marriage laws, with their religious overtones, from the books altogether.

Re: Marriage

[sumdumass]

You should be glad for people like him. Thou shalt not murder is likely a good reason you are even still alive. I can think of a few people I wouldn't mind killing off to make my world a better place but haven't because it is a sin and people like him told the rest of the world what to do (illegal ).

Re:Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah lets fuck everything up for 4% of our population.

The horror!

So instead let's fuck everything up for the other 96%!

Re:Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

And rules for the sake of rules

Yes, there are lots of rules in societies that are related to being married or in an equivalent registered relationship..

Re: Marriage

[PopeRatzo]

I can think of a few people I wouldn't mind killing off to make my world a better place but haven't because it is a sin

If you need some Iron Age book to tell you that it's wrong to kill someone, you weren't brought up right.

Re:Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

People have always been able to set up beneficiaries, wills, powers of attorney, do not resuscitate orders, etc. You mention this and then dismiss it out of hand. Hospitals and courts can't ignore these documents on a whim just because of personal preference or because a family member disagrees. Even a straight couple is wise to use these documents.

Marriage is a contract - the government should not be issuing licenses or deciding which adults can and can't sign a contract.

Get government out of the marriage business altogether.

Re:Marriage

[wickerprints]

Right, because treating same sex couples equally under the law--that is to say, not kicking them out of the ambulance; not having their homophobic relatives contest their wills and leave their widows and widowers nothing--somehow instantaneously nullifies and "fucks up" your heterosexual marriage, your rights, your recognized status under the law.

Are those rights now DENIED to you simply because they are recognized for same sex couples? You still don't understand. Your so-called "right" to be a pompous, bigoted asshole; your right to treat a group of people as inferior under the law, is not a right. The only thing that gets fucked up here is that you don't get to take out your prejudices against gays and lesbians and call that your "religious freedom."

This idea of needing to "protect heterosexual marriage" because it is somehow "threatened" by men marrying men, and women marrying women, is really a statement to the effect that straights regard their own marital bonds to be so fragile, so tenuous, that they need the security of denying other people their rights, to say to other people how THEY should be recognized when that has no bearing on their own status in society. How pathetic for you that you feel that way.

Re: Marriage

[melted]

I understand why straight families deserve the tax cut: the government hopes they'd procreate. I don't get why gay families should enjoy the same benefits. Other than that, I'm completely in support of grown adults doing whatever they want with their lives.

Re:Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

If that were true, you wouldn't be concern trolling.

Re:Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct, I read SJW in a post As this posters opinion is not worth shit

Re:Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

It is true and I'm not concern trolling. I'm pointing out that you, individually, are harming your own argument. Just yours.

Re: Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand why straight families deserve the tax cut: the government hopes they'd procreate. I don't get why gay families should enjoy the same benefits. Other than that, I'm completely in support of grown adults doing whatever they want with their lives.

Gay couples create and raise children too.

That said, I'm hoping that gay marriage will provide non-procreating marriage role models. It would be great if we could squash the belief that procreating is some kind of accomplishment or service to society.

Re: Marriage

[quax]

Seriously? You just don't go around killing people because it may endanger you prospects in a hypothetical afterlife?

Charming.

Re: Marriage

[sumdumass]

Yup. I wasn't brought up Christian. What is your point? Did you also miss the illegal part too? Or can you not address the entirety of a statement?

Re: Marriage

[PopeRatzo]

Yup. I wasn't brought up Christian.

The Ten Commandments are pre-Christian. So what's your point?

Is the reason you don't kill people really because God told you not to?

Re: Marriage

[sumdumass]

Yup. That and the illegal part has saved several people's lives. I doubt I'm alone in this restraint to. Isn't there anyone you wished would die but refused to cause the death yourself? If so, what stopped you?

Re:Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh bondage, up yours!

Re: Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

Pets aren't children.

Re: Marriage

[quax]

What stopped me is empathy, even in my enemies I recognize a shared humanity.

Seriously dude, if you feel that way there's something seriously wrong with you. Although the condition is not too uncommon.

I am dead serious, get yourself tested.

And please don't take this comment as a reason to add me to your enemy list.

The condition is nothing to be ashamed of, in a sense it could be said it makes you more free in your choices than other people. But if you fall onto that spectrum you should know about it.

Re:Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words, money. They want all the money that married people get and single people don't.

Re: Marriage

[melted]

Gay _female_ couples can have children, yes. Gay male couples can't. As to raising children, I'd be fine cutting them a tax break if they adopt, if there wasn't one already. I figure two dads is better than no one at all.

Re: Marriage

[sumdumass]

Are your glasses dirty or something? This will be the third time i have mentioned illegality and you seem to have missed or ignored it the other two times.

And yes, The ten commandments are pre Christianity. It was a law of the Jews. What Christianity did was expanded the concept to all people instead of a select few already of a religion.

Re: Marriage

[sumdumass]

There is nothing wrong with me. There are people who served no obvious purpose or value to society. There are people who piss me off, more trouble than they are worth and if it was livestock, they would have been culled a long time ago.

Your empathy is hollow too. It was empathy that was the driver behind Germany's T4, the modern euthanasia push for terminally ill as well as the old and aging in liberalized European countries. It is empathy that has legally killed. And note the legally part.

If you could rationalize it, empathy has historically allowed and caused the death of others and it would bring you to the same place.

Re: Marriage

[quax]

It's called assisted suicide for a reason. So yes, empathy can sometimes lead to the act of killing.

Pretty straightforward with people since they can tell you what they want. Less so with animals. My 16 year old dog is not doing that well anymore, going to have to make a difficult call pretty soon.

Re: Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "having children". Gay women can become pregnant and give birth, but for now* they still need a sperm donor from a man. Gay men need an egg donor, sperm contributor, and a surrogate mother. In both cases, only one partner contributes genetic material**.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_sperm
** three-person IVF is currently only used for mitochondrial disease

Re:Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

The source of conflict between both sides has come from using one word to mean two things. Marriage is both a legal convention and a tradition (often rooted in religion). The gay community rightly wants the legal convention, and the religious rightly want to maintain their traditions. But the language gets confused. Each thinks the other is focused on what they think of as marriage. Both sides would like to define both meanings of marriage. But that's self defeating zero sum thinking.

Sadly, I think the legal convention extended to gay marriage could have been done long ago if it had been framed strictly as that. That sad realization came from listening to a woman wanting to have gay marriage legalized so she could get married in her parents' Catholic Church. Changing laws is easier than changing minds. Fighting for both delayed the former and didn't help the later.

Anyway, back to my point: it helps to understand what someone means by marriage when they are using the word. It then becomes easier to persuade them to soften their stance. Your diatribe, while well intentioned, is aimed at the wrong part of what many people are fearing. You don't have to be a fire breathing jerk. Don't push people away when you are trying to change minds.

But that's my 2 cents.

Re:Marriage

[Theovon]

Religious fundamentalists are against gay marriage for the same reason that religious fundametalists believe in creationism. They interpret their holy book in some peculiar way, giving them a “truth” that is completely inconsistent with reality, and they insist on imposing that truth on you.

I saw this video where Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross argued over the age of the earth. Both are conservative Christians. Hovind insists on a literal interpretation of the Bible, while Ross is unwilling to deny solid evidence from astronomy and geology that the earth and the universe are very old. So Hovind calls Ross a HERETIC. For not denying objective evidence.

They believe that death didn’t enter the world until after sin, and sin didn’t happen until Adam and Eve, who lived about 6000 years ago. Therefore the earth CAN’T be billions of years old or else is violates a tennet of their beliefs about salvation.

The thing is, not everyone interprets the Bible in such a strictly literal way, allowing them the option to face reality. Creationists can’t do that.

So back to gay marriage, there are some Bible verses that they interpret as being anti-gay. SOME of them may have been and may have made some limited sense (to them at least) at a time when human populations were very small. Others are not clearly about homosexuality but instead seem to refer to other "perversions," like pagan fertility rites. Out of ignorance both of the scriptual meaning and its historical context, they insist on less-than-clear-cut interpretations of the Bible and declare homosexuality to be a sin.

Therefore they CANNOT accept an enlightened modern perspective on sexuality.

Christians worry about the erosion of Christianity. It’s rigid thinking like this that is the cause of Christianity’s own undoing.

Re: Marriage

[sumdumass]

Actually, it is called medical malpractice. What I'm talking about is the reports of doctors evoking end of life treatment plans for the elderly in which they stop life saving treatments based on an expectation of death in patient care situations where they could live a lot longer but they want to free up bed space or conseeve limited resources. This is done completely without the patient permission.

Yes, you can kill you dog when it is lame or old. I do think that there is a huge difference between your pet and a human. Maybe that is just a relic from an iron age book that describes my prospects in an afterlife, but you not understanding it seems more frightening than any mental condition you attempt to ascribe to me.

Oh.. look up the fact that nih and other public health systems in Europe denying life saving treatments to the elderly who are obviously wanting treatment and to live. It is not euthanasia I am talking about.

Re:Marriage

[swillden]

Except of course that before "marriage equality" was imposed by the courts many states were passing domestic partnership laws. Domestic partnership laws solved all of those issues.

Water under the bridge now, but I always thought this was the right solution... as long as it was taken one step further: Establish standard legal structures for domestic partnerships that mirror existing legal structures for marriage but can be used by any pair (or more, for that matter) of competent adults, then classify all existing marriages as domestic partnerships and stop issuing marriage licenses. Just have civil unions/domestic partnerships for everyone.

That approach would have left "marriage" as a purely symbolic and religious act, and left it up to churches to decide how they wanted to define it. Undoubtedly, some churches would refuse to solemnize gay marriage while others would be fine with it... indeed some churches might be established precisely in order to provide that religious service for the LGBT community. No need to make anyone feel like their religious freedom is being trampled, and no need to treat any segment of society differently.

This was my position on the issue from the early 90s when it first started to get some traction. I knew from the beginning that there was no way the restriction on homosexual marriage could be justified under the 14th amendment, and that if the religious right wanted to preserve the institution of marriage the way they saw it they needed to get government out of it, but instead they tried to fight it head on, and lost.

Re:Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

Because rules in religions exist to strengthen a society and help it endure over time, and societies don't endure without lots of children. Strength for a person or for a society comes from working for the future and building things, not from entertaining yourself. Societies are further strengthened when people act as a team and help each other succeed together, so frivolous and self-centered behaviors are discouraged. And using others for your entertainment and trying to tempt them into joining you in your frivolity is doubly discouraged.

But who wants a strong family or a strong society anymore? Everyone is really happy with the way societies have been going the last 30 years, right? Why would anyone want a strong family to help them get by when times are tough or help them prosper and share in their success during the good times?

If you want, you can throw away all the knowledge and wisdom about how families built societies and then societies built civilizations over 1000s of years. How has that been going for people? Why isn't everyone really happy?

Re:Marriage

[Attila Dimedici]

Except that the "religious right" was beginning to accept the idea of domestic partnership when the activists said that was not good enough.

In order to get where you said you think things should have gone, you need move one step at a time. The first step was to establish the concept of domestic partnership. I am firmly convinced that the reason the activists did not want domestic partnerships was because they knew it would leave it up to churches (and other organizations) to decide how they wanted to define marriage. They did not want to allow churches the option to define marriage.

Re:Marriage

[Theaetetus]

Except of course that before "marriage equality" was imposed by the courts many states were passing domestic partnership laws. Domestic partnership laws solved all of those issues.

Except of course that the case that "imposed" marriage equality, Obergefell v. Hodges, invalidated a statute that barred domestic partnerships:

Ohio Rev. Code 3101.01(C)(3):
The recognition or extension by the state of the specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of this state. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of this state, as defined in section 9.82 of the Revised Code, that extends the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is void ab initio.

So, no. Stop trying to rewrite history, and particularly history from just last year.

Re: Marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

Gay _female_ couples can have children, yes. Gay male couples can't.

False. There are gay men raising children from previous relationships with women and who have children via surrogacy. You are grasping at straws. Why?

Re:Marriage

[shutdown -p now]

Have you ever heard the phrase "separate but equal"? Are you aware of its context?

Re:Marriage

[swillden]

Except that the "religious right" was beginning to accept the idea of domestic partnership when the activists said that was not good enough.

They said that because it still placed them in a different, and by implication lesser, class. Eliminating government-sanctioned marriage for heterosexuals would have removed that distinction.

They did not want to allow churches the option to define marriage.

What they wanted churches to do or not do wouldn't have mattered at all. Removing government sanction for heterosexual marriage would have left gay marriage activists without any logical basis to demand that government should sanction homosexual marriage. And there's clearly NO way government could intervene to prevent churches from defining marriage however they like for their own religious purposes. Any attempt to do so would have been a blatant violation of the first amendment protections on freedom of religion.

Re: Marriage

[Rakarra]

Here we go, folks, the #1 reason why SJW, once a beautiful term full of meaning, has now become entirely useless and deserves to be retired.

Re: Marriage

[micahraleigh]

Raising children is more of an accomplishment and service to society than anything any government has ever done in history, today, or at any point in the future.

Your equivocation between straight and homosexual couples raising children flagrantly disregards any sense of practicality or morality.

I have a gay acquaintance who personally told me gay people should not be allowed to raise children. I'm not sure which of the many, many reasons he had in mind when he made this claim to me, but please respect that homosexual guy enough not to slam the door in his sensibilities there.

Many statistics have show that the average homosexual relationship is incredibly short. Months. Weeks. That is no place to be raising children. I would never want to be raised that way. Are you saying you would?

Re: Marriage

[micahraleigh]

It's becoming fashionable to label churches that only marry hetero's as bigoted and full of hate.

Homosexuals aren't just pushing for the ability to legally practice homosexuality. They also want to be socially validated for their views.

I don't see why I have to tell anyone homosexuality is OK.

Or any other practice.

Re: Marriage

[cyber-vandal]

I'm no SJW, I just don't get why you or anyone else cares

You are the company you keep

[HuguesT]

Enough said.

speaker

[Anonymous Coward]

The New York Trump is reporting that renowned Venture Capitalist, Paypal Founder, and Gawker Litigation Funder, Peter Trump will be speaking at the Retrumplican National Convention. The original story does not state what Trumpl will discuss at the convention, only that he'll be speaking the last day, but there's plenty of speculation.

Re:speaker

[Anonymous Coward]

..but there's plenty of speculation.

Don't you mean trumpulation?

Re:speaker

[Anonymous Coward]

That was trumptacular!

If you're near the convention...

[jddj]

Try not to get any of that on you. It doesn't wipe off.

Re:If you're near the convention...

[Anonymous Coward]

After Obummer moves out of the White House they'll have to fumigate. The brown clown's stains match the stench.

I didn't know he was gay

[fustakrakich]

What, does he wear pink socks? Whoops! Sorry, that was Ted Cruz

First?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Thiel will be the first openly-gay man to speak at the convention in 16 years"

Yeah right, Milo Yiannopoulos has that fabulous title.

All walks of life are warming up to Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

The left must be terrified considering Trump's followers aren't your run of the mill Democratic sheeple. These are intelligent, informed, individuals willing to speak out and fed up with America's decay at the hands of Obummer. Good for them. This is a movement. This is the beginning of America being made great again!

Re:All walks of life are warming up to Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Your negative pints validate my words. Your tears sustain me. Thank you.

Re:All walks of life are warming up to Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the Brexit vote, the Left wants to impose age restrictions on voting to exclude older people. Expect widespread pro-Hillary election fraud this fall so that they can undemocratically continue to force Abu Bama's agenda on the population.

Not a libertarian anymore!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thiel "has been a staunch supporter of Donald Trump's run for the oval office, previously supported Ron Paul for president and has identified himself as a conservative libertarian in the past...

Anyone who supports Trump is certainly not a libertarian. In fact, it was clear that Thiel had abandoned libertarianism when he gave an interview two years ago. During the interview, he said that he was opposed to competition because "it's very, very hard to make money" when there's competition!

Re:Not a libertarian anymore!

[ShanghaiBill]

During the interview, he said that he was opposed to competition because "it's very, very hard to make money" when there's competition!

You are taking what he said out of context. He said that as an investor, he prefers companies that are not exposed to direct competition (because of IP, market dominance, or whatever). He did not mean that he supported government action to inhibit competition.

Re:Not a libertarian anymore!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are taking what he said out of context.

No I am not. He says directly in the interview that "capitalism and competition are ... really antonyms". In other words, Thiel believes that competition is incompatible with capitalism.

Re:Not a libertarian anymore!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thiel believes that competition is incompatible with capitalism.

Here's another article where Thiel says that "Monopoly is the condition of every successful business".

http://www.businessinsider.com/peter-thiel-google-monopoly-2014-9

Re:Not a libertarian anymore!

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps more to the point, he has said things like "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible", and has shown a keen interest in the neoreactionary movement, which is a fairly different beast to libertarianism. There is some obvious overlap between the monarchical system of goverment advocated by the NRx crowd and Trump's implicitly proposed autocratic approach to governing.

Re:Not a libertarian anymore!

[stinerman]

Well when you throw in with a guy who wants to exclude people from the country based on their religion, I think you lose the libertarian moniker.

Re:Not a libertarian anymore!

[Anonymous Coward]

What does IP mean if there is no government action to inhibit competition?

He thinks he is gonna talk at the convention

[frovingslosh]

That's so cute. He thinks he will get to talk at the convention. Actually we have him scheduled for the Leviticus 20:13 event.

Bill suck's but not Hillary's

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill suck's but not Hillary's

Re:Bill suck's but not Hillary's

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill suck's but not Hillary's

Knowing his predilection, it is likely that Hillary sucks, at least as much as Monica did.

Aaah...

[fubarrr]

Why people in American VC industry are such clowns?

Re:Aaah...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, a round clowns you!

This is largely a myth

[Giant Electronic Bra]

As someone who's actually KNOWN Bernie Sanders (to the extent that I've lived in Burlington when he was Mayor, met the guy, argued with him, etc, I don't have any personal relationship with him) for 30 years, and greatly appreciated what he's brought to national politics in the last year or so, I believe this 'Sanders supporters hate Hillary' meme is mostly bunk. There may be a very vocal minority of people who became 'Sanders supporters' suddenly in the last 6-12 months because it was fashionable and they yell and squawk about how much they 'hate Hillary' because that's apparently fashionable too.

See, I would draw a huge distinction. I dislike the ESTABLISHMENT, and all the dirty tricks that the powers which be have used against Sanders IS galling. Clinton is ABSOLUTELY a pillar of that community. OTOH if you look at her in terms of an actually realistic view and not the bizarro-world distorto-vision that FOX News and etc have created around her, she's a relatively center-left candidate with fairly conventional views for a President. Nothing is going to change vastly, but its likely she'll implement some modest policy changes and programs that are part of the agenda for more left-leaning people. In fact she'll probably continue largely in the same vein as Obama, with increases in the minimum wage, labor-friendly policies outside of trade, some expansion of publicly funded healthcare, and otherwise she's probably closer to Nixon than to say Kennedy.

The bad things will be the environment, which Clinton seems to have little interest in at a critical juncture, and the military-intelligence-police-industrial-state that seems to have been building itself under every president of the last 70 years happily regardless of what policies they supposedly espouse. I'm not even convinced a President Sanders or somesuch could change those things.

Re:This is largely a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

There may be a very vocal minority of people who became 'Sanders supporters' suddenly in the last 6-12 months because it was fashionable and they yell and squawk about how much they 'hate Hillary' because that's apparently fashionable too.

Furthermore, I don't think most of them are even old enough to vote. Seems like there are a bunch of high schoolers who jumped on the Sanders trendwagon and have been throwing a collective Twitter-tantrum since he's not the nominee.

Re:This is largely a myth

[quax]

The bad things will be the environment, which Clinton seems to have little interest in at a critical juncture ...

That is true, but the she is an astute foreign policy person, and will have very good relationships with Angela Merkel, who very much understands what's at stake.

Re:This is largely a myth

[gay358]

That is true, but the she is an astute foreign policy person, and will have very good relationships with Angela Merkel, who very much understands what's at stake.

Was that some kind of sick joke? Angela Merkel is disaster and her extremely shortsighted and naive politics with asylum seekers, Turkey etc is not only in danger of destroying the EU, but Europe itself. Now Brits have voted to escape this madness and I understand well why they have done that.

Re:This is largely a myth

[quax]

Reading comprehension. This was specifically with regards to the environment.

For a conservative leader Merkel displays a surprising understanding of the dangers that global warming poses.

And long term this is a much more pressing problem than the refugee crisis.

If you think you have a refugee crisis now, just wait and see what happens in another fifty years, when global warming does its number on the climate in Asia and Africa.

You've seen nothing yet.

Re: This is largely a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

Merkel is a fucking disaster. Her own conservative party even despises her. That you compare her favorably to Clinton is BAD for Clinton, and also demonstrates how much of a clueless dipshit you are.

Re: This is largely a myth

[quax]

Charming.

Always know I am doing something right when it gets ACs all worked up.

BTW Merkel's popularity is on the upswing again, your welcome.

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

Re:This is largely a myth

[MillionthMonkey]

Hillary is a lot like JavaScript- you hate her, you love to complain about her, but you have to go with her because there really is no other option, at least not in the near future.

Bernie Sanders drew in two separate contingents of people who dislike HRC: Liberals who consider Hillary to be too conservative, vs. conservatives who couldn't stomach any of the clownish GOP candidates and who saw Sanders as a lifeboat. The liberal faction will hold their noses and vote for Hillary, while the conservative faction will hold theirs and vote for Trump. Sanders was a much more viable candidate, and did better than Hillary in every general election matchup poll, simply because he was able to siphon away a lot of voters from Trump.

Hillary strikes people as dishonest and disingenuous partly because everything she says sounds like it went through a committee. (Meanwhile Trump is tweeting in his underwear.) She likes insipid platitudes: "We're problem solvers, not deniers." "We don't hide from change, we harness it." "We can reform our government and revitalize our democracy so that it works for everyday Americans." etc. etc. etc. It sounds out-of-touch- she hasn't realized that people are sick of politicians always saying shit like that.

But the scandals associated with her are as boring as she is. They only gain traction because she doesn't know how to handle scandals. It's infuriating to watch her keep trying to sweep stupid little stuff under the rug even as it's being pulled away from her. Instead of handling things during one news cycle, she cops to things bit by bit by bit by bit... giving her detractors a prolonged orgasm.

Four Americans died in the Benghazi embassy attack- but let's get some perspective here. During the GWB administration, 60 people were killed in 13 embassy attacks. (All those attacks were one-day stories- since back then, nobody wanted to "politicize a tragedy".) The Benghazi investigations did uncover Hillary's email scandal- but seriously, why are we surprised that a 65 year old woman who still uses a Blackberry doesn't understand how to use email?

In 2007 the investigation of the U.S. Attorney firing scandal ground to a halt once it turned out that the GWB administration had conveniently "lost" five million emails relating to it, in violation of federal law. That's five million, with an "M", about a thousand times as many that were lost by Hillary. But that was also a one-day story- the Bush administration defused its scandals deftly.

People characterize Hillary's email ineptitude as reflecting poorly on her lack of judgment, and there's something to that. But she's running against a guy who just released a campaign logo showing the letters "T" and "P" having anal sex. At least the "T" was the one doing the pitching, not the catching, but it still shows a lack of judgement on his part as well.

Both of these two are narcissists. But they're different flavors of narcissism. She's opportunistic and careerist. But Trump has narcissistic personality disorder which is much more serious. All he talks about is Donald Trump, all his stories involve Donald Trump, and his press conferences are 100% about who is and isn't saying nice things about Donald Trump. He refers to himself in the third person. That's a big red flag right there.

Re:This is largely a myth

[drinkypoo]

OTOH if you look at her in terms of an actually realistic view and not the bizarro-world distorto-vision that FOX News and etc have created around her, she's a relatively center-left candidate

Being a warhawk is not being leftist. She votes for war consistently.

Re:This is largely a myth

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Well, we can't say for certain where Clinton will go with AGW and such things, but she's shown NO interest. There's zero indication that she will make even the smallest political sacrifices in order to further climate negotiations or put in place laws and regulations badly needed in the US. All indications are that instead she will maintain the existing status-quo, which if it goes on for another 8 years will utterly demolish any hope of bringing climate change under control without severe and likely near-catastrophic consequences (certainly extremely expensive consequences that will set back economic growth in the third world by decades, if not halt it altogether).

Re:This is largely a myth

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Meh, everyone at the higher levels of government is a 'violentist', they ALL believe that the logic of force is the logic of human relations. Now, maybe Sanders is (to an extent) an exception, but the point is Clinton is hardly any more warlike than any other president the US has had in the 20th Century. So it is hardly a big giant evil label to put on her, unless you're interested in indicting the whole executive branch, all of Congress, etc. I'm just saying, that's a bridge, or 10, too far at this juncture. I'd love to see a Sanders in place who would absolutely go to a last-resort policy on using force, but that does not mean he'd never use it. Truth is US policy is not just invented whole-cloth by each President.

Re:This is largely a myth

[quax]

Which is why international pressure is the only hope to get her going on this front. Unlike Trump, she will listen to allies.

Re:This is largely a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhuh, you'd have us vote for Shaitan over Cthulhu huh?
Trumpity Trumpity TRUMP!

Re:This is largely a myth

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Yeah, well, she's obviously highly intelligent and at least modestly open to actual evidence-based reasoning. One would have to believe she's the infinitely preferable choice between those two. Thus Sanders endorsed her. One has to understand, Bernie is a VERY pragmatic politician. Many people confuse his strong ideological orientation for the type of rigid inflexibility that buffoons like Ted Cruz exhibit, but nothing could be further from the truth. He's determined that he's not going to further his agenda at this time better in some other way, so he's going to push for Clinton's election. He'll still be a Senator, and his seat there is UTTERLY secure. I expect he'll be forging some new political alliances, and he's got a BIG push on now to get real progressives into both state and national elected offices. Its a longer-term strategy, but that's what needs to happen.

Re:This is largely a myth

[quax]

Always liked Bernie. He's a rare breed who sticks to his principles, but, as you were pointing out, still knows how to pragmatically work within the system. Coming from a completely different ideological background the Republicans only had Ron Paul who I find was similarly principled without being a dick about it. Unfortunately, his son doesn't even come close to fill his shoes.

Re:This is largely a myth

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Yeah, I can respect Ron Paul. I think there are some fatal flaws with the whole Libertarian concept of government, but honestly I find it frustrating when many people assume that being somewhat 'to the left' means a lack of respect for basic rights. I think Bernie is actually pretty good there. Opinions can differ on what exactly is most important in that realm. Its just unfortunate that the Ron Pauls and Bernie Sanders of the world seem to be painted as opponents and not allies. That may change.

Re:This is largely a myth

[quax]

Always hoped that Liberals and Libertarians at some point will realize that there is a reason that their brands of politics share such similar names. If they could work together to promote the core concepts of personal freedom that they agree on, then this would make a political force to reckon with.

Re:This is largely a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

.... At least the "T" was the one doing the pitching, not the catching, but it still shows a lack of judgement on his part as well.

This comment debases the gay community and anyone who has ever received anal sex and is rather offensive as is. Those who receive anal sex do not inherently demonstrate lack of judgment, but this poor choice of words does.

Thiel wants a king

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Remember? This is the guy who advocates replacing the Republic with some sort of crazy dictator/king/something. Well, he sees an opportunity for it to happen, because if Trump is elected? There won't be elections anymore. Not in the way we think of them now. They'll be rigged sham affairs more like what goes over in places like Russia. THAT is what he's behind. Not that he probably thinks Trump specifically should be in charge, but once you've ditched the reality of people having a say in the system then guys like him with loads of money figure they'll rearrange things to suite themselves. Its a rather vapid fantasy, but there are fools of all stripes in this world.

Re:Thiel wants a king

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember? This is the guy who advocates replacing the Republic with some sort of crazy dictator/king/something.

No, I don't remember. Can you provide a link to support your claim?

Re: Thiel wants a king

[Anonymous Coward]

One piece that mentions Thiel's neoreactionary associations: http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/06/peter-thiel.html

The act of associating with, or even funding, leaders of a strain of political thought do not necessarily indicate unconditional support for all aspects of every bit of those politics, but I'd be super surprised if Thiel wasn't at least highly sympathetic to them.

Re: Thiel wants a king

[Anonymous Coward]

You're literally just making shit up. You're a fucking moron.

Re: Thiel wants a king

[Anonymous Coward]

One piece that mentions Thiel's neoreactionary associations: http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/06/peter-thiel.html

Wow, thanks for pointing this out. The article quotes Thiel as saying, "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible".

Re:Thiel wants a king

[Anonymous Coward]

You... You think the elections are not already rigged?

nasty

[Ryanrule]

theil is a gay man who pushed for anti gay legislation.

Re:nasty

[Dcnjoe60]

theil is a gay man who pushed for anti gay legislation.

So? Bush was an Ivy League graduate who pushed to dumb down the education system. Politics isn't about doing what's right, it's about appealing to the masses. Well, the masses of donors, that is.

Now I feel like we dodged a bullet ...

[quax]

... when one of his funds passed on my venture. Really wouldn't know how to deal with this guy. What a disappointment. Used to admire him.

Exactly why is this newsworthy?

[execthis]

Wow. A human being, in a free country with free speech, is going to speak at a public event.

*Why* is this news?

Seriously, if people can't handle this without shitting their pants, *that* is the story that needs to be reported...

The more that people crap themselves over people exercising their rights in our free country, the more appealing it makes the people they condemn seem.

All I can say is the level of hypocrisy is truly sickening when self-righteous losers claim to ascribe to basic principles of freedom - so long as it never involves them actually having to enact it in their own conduct.

Re:Exactly why is this newsworthy?

[MillionthMonkey]

Wow. A human being, in a free country with free speech, is going to speak at a public event. *Why* is this news?

It's news because so few human beings want to speak at this event. They're having trouble finding people willing to show up.

Sarah Palin is staying home. Ted Nugent has turned down invitations to appear. Lynyrd Skynyrd and Kid Rock are going to be in Cleveland but are "too busy". They almost snagged Mike Ditka but he chickened out. A spokesman for Ben Sasse from Nebraska announced "Sen. Sasse will not be attending the convention and will instead take his kids to watch some dumpster fires across the state."

The glory days of Clint Eastwood yelling at an empty chair are long gone- he isn't going either.

Re:Exactly why is this newsworthy?

[execthis]

So Ted Nugent and Sarah Palin aren't going to be speaking at the bakeoff event at my local elementary school either.

No one gives a f__

Personally I admire people willing to make a public stand in this dumbf__ political climate of intolerance and idiocy we have.

In case you didn't know, people speaking up and sharing their ideas and beliefs makes us stronger and better. Intolerance is what makes us petty and weak.

Re:Exactly why is this newsworthy?

[MillionthMonkey]

Hey, if you throw a gangbang for your wife and no one shows up, I couldn't give a fuck about that either. That still doesn't make it not funny.

Re:Exactly why is this newsworthy?

[execthis]

Wow, another vulgar, self-righteous, abusive, leftist bigot.

Keep taking the low road.

Re:Exactly why is this newsworthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you didn't know, people speaking up and sharing their ideas and beliefs makes us stronger and better. Intolerance is what makes us petty and weak.

Then why is nobody willing to show up to this clusterfuck? You kind of missed the point.

Re:Exactly why is this newsworthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from reactions to what you say, where and in what context you say it, and why you say it.

The event is a part of the process to elect someone to the most powerful public office in the world. How is it not news who will speak there? And what they say, will that not be news either?

Re:Exactly why is this newsworthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

They can have two empty chairs this time, one for Clint and one for Hillary. Then we can pretend one empty chair is yelling at the other.

Re:Exactly why is this newsworthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Intolerance is what makes us petty and weak.

Make America petty and weak again! Trump 2016!

Does this sound like anyone we know?

[MillionthMonkey]

This is from DSM-V:

The essential features of a personality disorder are impairments in personality (self and interpersonal) functioning and the presence of pathological personality traits. To diagnose narcissistic personality disorder, the following criteria must be met:

• A. Significant impairments in personality functioning manifest by:
  • 1. Impairments in self functioning (a or b):
    • a. Identity: Excessive reference to others for self-definition and self-esteem regulation; exaggerated self-appraisal may be inflated or deflated, or vacillate between extremes; emotional regulation mirrors fluctuations in self-esteem.
    • b. Self-direction: Goal-setting is based on gaining approval from others; personal standards are unreasonably high in order to see oneself as exceptional, or too low based on a sense of entitlement; often unaware of own motivations.

  AND

  • 2. Impairments in interpersonal functioning (a or b):
    • a. Empathy: Impaired ability to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others; excessively attuned to reactions of others, but only if perceived as relevant to self; over- or underestimate of own effect on others.
    • b. Intimacy: Relationships largely superficial and exist to serve self-esteem regulation; mutuality constrained by little genuine interest in others' experiences and predominance of a need for personal gain.
• B. Pathological personality traits in the following domain:
  • 1. Antagonism, characterized by:
    • a. Grandiosity: Feelings of entitlement, either overt or covert; self-centeredness; firmly holding to the belief that one is better than others; condescending toward others.
    • b. Attention seeking: Excessive attempts to attract and be the focus of the attention of others; admiration seeking.
• C. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual's personality trait expression are relatively stable across time and consistent across situations.
• D. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual's personality trait expression are not better understood as normative for the individual's developmental stage or socio-cultural environment.
• E. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual's personality trait expression are not solely due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., severe head trauma).

Tell me that doesn't send shivers down your spine.

Figures. Closed my PayPal account.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apart from the lacking service while being a bunch of untransparant (fees) money grabbers and the fact they keep some people's (donated) paypal money frozen, this addition puts them in their true spot: right wing conservative nutter ballz. Just closed my account after a long struggle with them, never to return. Signed, a left oriented person. Sad that I didn't see truth for such a long time.

To sever man

[Mats Svensson]

Your funds & civil rights have been temporarily frozen,
just until we can figure out whats going on.