Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
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.
"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?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Why is it so important to stop people doing what they want when it doesn't affect you in the slightest?
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".
I like music
Try not to get any of that on you. It doesn't wipe off.
Thiel? or Trump?
Yes.
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.
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!
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.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
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.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
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.
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.
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.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.