Slashdot Mirror
Project Include Drops Y Combinator As Peter Thiel Pledges $1.25 Million To Trump (theverge.com)
Peter Thiel's support for U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has given Silicon Valley a headache. This past weekend, Thiel donated $1.25 million to his campaign, which is driving away partners from Thiel's Silicon Valley accelerator, Y Combinator. Today, Project Include, a community for building meaningful, enduring diversity and inclusion into tech companies, said that it would no longer work with Y Combinator startups. "Thiel's actions are in direct conflict with our values at Project Include," the group's co-founder, Ellen Pao, wrote in a Medium post. "Because of this continued connection to YC, we are compelled to break off our relationship with YC." The Verge reports: Founded in 2005, Y Combinator has incubated some of the biggest tech companies of the past decade, including Airbnb, Dropbox, and Stripe. It faced a barrage of criticism over the weekend for refusing to dissociate itself from Thiel, who took an advisory role with the organization in 2015. In a series of tweets, YC's president stood by Thiel. "Cutting off opposing viewpoints leads to extremism and will not get us the country we want," Sam Altman wrote. "Diversity of opinion is painful but critical to the health of a democratic society. We can't start purging people for political support." In her post, Pao rejected the idea that Thiel's donation could be dismissed as political speech. "We agree that people shouldn't be fired for their political views, but this isn't a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence," she wrote. "Giving more power to someone whose ascension and behavior strike fear into so many people is unacceptable. His attacks on black, Mexican, Asian, Muslim, and Jewish people, on women, and on others are more than just political speech; fueled by hate and encouraging violence, they make each of us feel unsafe."
I don't need to know the underlying issue. If Ellen Pao is involved, I'm rooting for the other side.
Also really the Clintonazis are getting less and less subtle nowadays.
lucm, indeed.
All this is is more virtue signaling; heaven forbid the other silicon valley lefties do not publicly show their disapproval. It's this public displays that lefties live for, after all.
I wasn't aware the "culture" of being gay meant you had to be a blind sheep and vote for every Democrat, no matter how much they hate gay culture...
The funny thing is if you really supported "gay culture" you would vote for Trump. Hillary will not do a thing for gay people because she already has their vote.
Trump meanwhile is fine with gay marriage, and if you voted for Trump it would mean one more Republican in power than there was before who supports people who are gay... Err I mean sleep with other men, since your litmus test would mean that "gay" people were only a subset of men who slept with men whereas Trump supports ALL men who have sex with men, not just a chosen few.
Vote Trump for more sex.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
He does have sex with men, but he isn't part of the culture. It's disingenuous to call him gay.
Since when does a sexual orientation require you becoming part of a particular culture?
I stole this Sig
Really quite fucking simply, attack the policies and investigate and report on the politicians. The supporters you leave right the fuck alone because democracy and free choice, you leave the supporters right the fuck alone because otherwise you are anti-democratic, anti-freedom and pro-arsehole.
Don't care who they support as long as they are doing it legally and not seeking to buy elections. That liberal progressives are launching this kind of attack means they are complete and utterly fake Liberal Progressives and are actually corporate stooges, right wing arseholes (jeebus, WTF, I am having to defend right wing supporters from left wing attacks because the left wing attackers are not actually left wing attackers but just right wing fakers pretending to be left wing).
When a politician chooses to call voters deplorable, guess who the deplorable person really is and it ain't those voters being slandered (that politician is also far right and most definitely not a Liberal Progressives, stop fucking lying).
I will always strive to protect voters from corrupt politicians, regardless of whether or not I disagree with the political choices of those voters, I am not a fake left winger.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Why did I never hear of it before seeing this story? Have I been living under a rock? Did I miss something important?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Is this the same Ellen Pao that sued for sexual harassment against a guy who she actually had sex with?
The libtard democrats have got to be some of the most intolerant people around. All this because Thiel donated to Trump? What a bunch of horseshit. Anyone who blindly supports HRC and tries to stigmatize supporters of her opponent are typical hypocrite scumbags.
And not trying to bomb an apartment complex in Kansas or setting a Reichstag fire in North Carolina.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's important to remember that even if you hate Trump, a lot of people really do support him, and their reasons aren't all irrational. I am willing to bet that the reason Peter Thiel supports Trump has nothing to do with homophobia, or even hate. Attacking his supporters like this does nothing but shut down communication, which is the only way we can ever overcome our differences.
That goes for Clinton supporters, too.
Irresponsible disclosure is responsible
Ellen Pao should cut ties with the American public, because a large portion of them support Trump and therefore she equates them with "advocating hatred and violence" and "Giving more power to someone whose ascension and behavior strike fear into so many people".
Incidentally, Hillary also strikes fear in the hearts of many people, and makes them feel unsafe.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
On that point, here are a couple of more examples.
Democrats hired protesters to get into fights at Trump rallys, to give the appearance that Trump supporters are violent thugs.
From that article, note that one of the hired protesters filed suit against a Trump supporter claiming that she was punched in the face. The first cited article has a secret recording of the person hired to orchestrate the fights, where he mentions that the protester was one of his group.
(And here she is after the incident, smiling, with no evidence of bruising or injury.)
Also of note, Scott Adams got shadowbanned from twitter, for no apparent reason, and has seen invitations for speaking go from several per month (for decades) to none. He estimates that blogging about the election has cost him $1 million in speaking fees alone.
And of course, after all that people started leaving fake bad reviews of his book.
Trump supporters have been pretty polite throughout the election. We don't put naked statues of Hillary in cities, or have billboards of her kissing Huma Abedin, or make comparisons of her to Hitler, Stalin, Satan, or Cthulhu.
This is the 3-week mark where all civil discourse goes to hell, both IRL and on this blog.
Expect things to get much *much* worse.
>Also I'm totally gay and hiding it, gay gay gay, but if you out me
Thiel was in Saudi Arabia when the Gawker article came out. Literally put his life in danger.
Thought she got completely discredited, how in hell did she get another job making more than minimum wage?
Project Include? More like Project Usurp.
all, and claims to stand for free speech people on the left are going out of their way to show that they are just as bigoted and unwilling to cooperate as they claim the people on the right are. I am starting to wonder if we would not be better off as two (or more) countries.
I understand that YC is a group of venture capitalists. What the heck does Pao's group actually provide for their partners? Their website makes it sound like they're diversity consultants, but this is the kind of thing that Slashdot should have included in the summary. Is Pao's group actually helping startups, or is this just an activist group glomming on and getting some publicity?
No, 'gayness' is an affectation. You can have sex with whomever you want and you don't have to adopt the beliefs of any particular subculture.
But if you want to posture as a member of an oppressed subculture and get the benefits of belonging to said group, you join up and there's a whole prefab identity waiting for you to put it on.
Pao not messing with your startup sounds like a substantial benefit to me. Thiel got his money's worth right there.
Looking at Pao's staff, I'd also suggest that she work on diversity at her own company a bit before lecturing others.
Is there evidence that the NC firebombing was in fact a false flag op?
I too find it suspicious, but haven't seen any supporting evidence as yet.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I doubt that we're going to get any before the election. I can't imagine North Carolina law enforcement is going to bust their ass on this one.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Anyone who engenders hate against any group
And THAT is why I'm not voting for Clinton.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Well, with Hillary "marriage is between one man and one woman", she has already targeted us.
She only changed her tune when the majority of Americans started favoring gay marriage and her strategists worked out that it was now politically expedient for her to switch her position.
And that's what all her "public positions" are like: carefully crafted messages to voting blocs; once she's in power, she won't give a fuck about any of that.
But really I couldn't care less what Ellen Pao says or does.
Also, this Silicon Valley groupthink requirement is getting ridiculous.
#DeleteChrome
I'm not sure Ellen Pao promising she won't have anything to do with your startups from now on is quite the punishment she seems to think it is.
Well, a few of decades ago, men who had sex with men and were found out really did suffer horrific oppression even in the US, and even more so abroad. Democrats, the social justice movement, and the American left were indeed quite helpful in ending that very real oppression. But now that discrimination against homosexuals is not much of a problem anymore, these people are going overboard and are starting to hurt the people they used to help.
Hillary Clinton, however, only changed her public position when it was politically beneficial to her and didn't make any difference to gay rights anymore. Given her history, any gay man or lesbian who votes for Hillary is a fool. Politicians won't stop taking advantage of us like that unless we make them pay a steep price.
Nobody else has the balls to publish anything negative about Clinton, no matter how damning or well-sourced. Desperate times, desperate measures. Read between the lines, like Soviet citizens did with Pravda.
While all of us believe in the ideas of free speech
Everyone says this... few actually mean it.
and open platforms, we draw a line here. We agree that people shouldnâ(TM)t be fired for their political views, but
this isnâ(TM)t a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence
Giving more power to someone whose ascension and behavior strike fear into so many people is unacceptable
Roughly half the voting country will be advocating hatred, violence and giving power to Trump when they go to the polls and vote Trump in the next few weeks including roughly 3 million who gave him money.
Doesn't that blow your mind? How do you sleep at night knowing close to half the country is a basket of ***ist ***phobe advocates of hatred and violence?
How can you not be constantly "triggered" knowing half the country actively supports Trump by voting for and advocating for him? You must be "terrified" beyond words. It must make you physically ill. How can you "feel safe"?
Everything you just complained about is even worse at Breitbart since Andrew Breitbart died.
The website is now literally run by Trump's campaign staff. No, really, Steve Bannon is both executive chairman at Breitbart and CEO of Donald Trump presidential campaign.
I notice you didn't say that the claims made were false.
Was that on purpose?
Well, politicians change opinions often. Even Trump who is only marginally a politician. However most politicians change their opinions when public opinions change. Trump on the other hand changes his opinions every time he wakes up from a nap.
Not a Hillary fan, but you would at least hope that politicians are able to change their minds when the general public changes their minds as well. Do you really want a politician out there who say "I was in favor eugenics in 1936, and I'm not going to change my mind just because it's 2016!" Sometimes being incalcitrant is a bad personality trait, and sometimes flip-flopping is what smart people do. Of course this argument doesn't fly for the sorts of people who feel there is a cultural war going on, and that being gay is evil yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
Why do the people who scream "diversity" really hate Diversity of Opinion ? (the only diversity that actually matters!).
It is interesting to see Chairman Pao's hand in this - she has become an even more intolerant "Thought Crime" fascist. Time to remind her what Free Speech actually means.
Trump doesn't have any.
Do you really want a politician out there who say "I was in favor eugenics in 1936, and I'm not going to change my mind just because it's 2016!"
Sure. Eugenics makes way more sense in 2016 than it did in 1936. Back then, the only way to change the gene pool was sterilization or extermination. Now, we can just directly edit defects out of our DNA.
But you'll talk your theory up.
Go team.
Did she promise you a cabinet position, or better kneepads or something?
And that's what all her "public positions" are like: carefully crafted messages to voting blocs; once she's in power, she won't give a fuck about any of that.
Our election is, once again, between A) "candidate who says what I like to hear, but probably won't do it" and B) "candidate who says what I hate and will certainly do it".
I agree that Clinton is clearly option A), but that is still not enough of an argument to support option B).
Also, don't Supreme Court judges change their mind based on popular opinion? (e.g., gay marriage)
You base that on your own biases, not on evidence. This is because evidence says that Hillary's team has been inciting violence here. I mean, we have videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And if you look up the woman in the video, well, you can see that she's on Hillary's payroll. I mean, unless you're going to say the FEC is lying now? Just look at how they paid her to be at the protests and what she did there:
https://beta.fec.gov/data/disb...
And here's the leak to tie it together: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...
It's on video. We saw her in the Arizona protests, blocking the road. It was in the media. How, pray tell, are you going to make this one out to be a false flag?
You are aware, I hope, that Planned Parenthood and the Abortion Industry for the most part was founded by Eugenicists? The stats even show them following forward with their program. There are a HELL of a lot more black babies aborted than their percentage of the population would suggest.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Did I miss something? Y Combinator used to be Paul Graham's organization. I searched the Wikipedia article and couldn't even find Peter Thiel mentioned. I never heard him mentioned in conjunction with Y Combinator until just very recently. What exactly is his relation to it?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Hey in America you can become an "inventor" by taking your Wal Mart bought clock apart and putting it in a briefcase.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Lets just have the democrats be the ruling party of the United States. They can take care of everyone for the greater good. The party leaders will determine what is in the interest of the community... We can call it "communism".
Seriously, this blacklisting of people for even daring to support anything but the democrats has grown grotesque.
And to make things sadder, we have evidence that the democrats rigged their primaries to get Hillary the nomination. Which means you're not merely a bastard for voting for something besides the democrats but you're also a bastard for voting for the democratic candidate that wasn't picked by the party bosses.
That's fucked up, gents. And if you keep buying into this shit, then the democracy is gone. We're all back to being peasants again as we will have proven ourselves to be unworthy of being anything more than that.
Cue the gaggle of retarded ACs that will either call me a literal nazi for suggesting that democracy requires freedom of speech, freedom of political thought, and freedom to express that in a politically effective way... and if they don't call me a Nazi they'll instead suggest I'm a brain washed sub human zombie because I don't do exactly what I'm told to do by our lords and masters.
People... I'm not saying you have to vote one way or the other on anything. Vote your own personal conscience. However, that very sentiment I issue there is predicated on the perpetuation of our republic. Should the republic be subverted to such an extent that the will of the people is truly meaningless... Your opinion about anything will at that point equal zero. Your feelings or interests or will or thoughts... of no value. So for the preservation of your own ability to even matter in the first place... I would ask you consider whether you should be voting for a political agenda that goes out of its way to silence any dissent. Today that opposition might be someone you disagree with... but tomorrow that might be you. And when that rolls through who will be there to save you? Because what we're seeing out of the modern DNC... is fascism. We're seeing orchestrated "brown shirt" type operations. Collisions between industry, government, law enforcement, foreign governments, the media.
I'm not saying you have to change the way you feel about any particular issue. I rather draw your attention to the character of the modern DNC... to their morality and ethics. This is who apparently many of us wish to rule the United States. "these" people.
if anyone is at all curious, my own desire is to devolve powers to the states and out of the Federal Government. Let Oregon run Oregon. Let Maine run Maine. Concentrating all that power in Washington is going to lead to an Emperor, a civil war, a grand national collapse, some combination of the above, or various other unpleasant consequences I haven't enumerated.
This is not sustainable. It has to stop. The level of corruption on display is crying out for some response... and it will come. From the top or the bottom... from without or within. This is going to end one way or another. I believe the best solution is to reduce the value of the prize so that there are fewer assholes drawn to the power. Absent that... I think we're headed for bad times. And I don't think vilifying what remains of the democracy is helping.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Given her history, any gay man or lesbian who votes for Hillary is a fool.
Ah! But the question is -- is that same gay man or lesbian a bigger or smaller fool if they vote for Trump?
That's where this election is at...
Even Obama was technically against gay marriage before he fought for it. It wasn't politically tenable to be publicly in favor of it until recent years.
This space intentionally left blank
You're saying that gayness is a cultural construct. Good for you, because it is.
However that's not quite the same as saying it's something you can ignore, any more than race is something you can ignore just because it's a scientifically bankrupt notion. You can't escape being imprinted by your formative experiences.
I do think the gay thing may be different in a few decades; millennials have a much more fluid notion of sexual orientation.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
No one involved in Planned Parenthood or the democrat party is going to admit such today, but Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthood Founder) was an adamant believer in eugenics.
Everything you read on the topic from supporters of abortion rights will seek to downplay her beliefs on this topic, but it cannot seriously be denied. She has extensive writings on the topic.
Actually, Obama's case is more interesting. In 1996, running for Illinois state Senate, he was pro gay marriage. Later, when he was running for US Senate and the presidency, he was anti. In 2012 he switched back to pro.
source
Actually, what they're doing is the definition of liberal progressivism, also known as "regressive liberalism". I had to look it up because I wanted to know why I, a traditional liberal (free as in speech), was getting lumped in with all the "check your privilege" types. And while I agree that it appears anti-democratic for one company to severe ties with another due to ideological differences, both parties are exercising their freedom of choice. Believe it or not, it's actually logically consistent. It's just one more casualty of this toxic election.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
because that's how lefties think. They think politics descends from biology. Sure it's hella bigoted and racist, but that's how they roll.
Ironically your broad and infantilizing stereotype of "lefties" is wrong.
Minorities, particularly sexual minorities, will trend left. This is partially because conservatism tends to endorse cultural conformity, but also because large portions of conservatism are actively hostile towards minorities.
Thus gay conservatives are more than a little unusual.
But that's different from saying that "politics descends from biology", as I suspect the majority of the left understands.
I stole this Sig
The last thing any startup needs is a pack of Ellen Pao's incompetent guilt-peddlers distracting people from the work they need to do.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
(we're a good way to taking over New Hampshire, a low population state, 10% of 20,000 signers have moved, plus more already were here, and we don't need to dominate the population, just have an undue influence on it)
Am I the only one to find this bit a little ... disturbing?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
"We agree that people shouldn't be fired for their political views, but this isn't a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence,"
Is it just me or is she actually saying "We shouldn't fire people for political beliefs, but let's fire people for their political beliefs" ? As head of a company focused on making money off diversity and inclusivity, Pao doesn't seem very inclusive of diverse views.
I think you're mischaracterising Trump. It's more fair to say he's the "candidate who says what I hate and will certainly try to do it". Unlike Clinton, he doesn't have the backing of the Washington machine and has managed to alienate both parties. Both Clinton and Trump are likely to push policies that are counter to the interests of the majority of the population, the difference is that Clinton is more likely to succeed.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
It's just that the connotations changed over time, making "marriage" somehow a religious thing, with "civil union" being the same thing in practice - minus the religious connotations.
Thus, he switched his support for what seemed like a viable option. A bird in hand now.
From TFA:
Later years offered greater clarity - and a shift from 1996. Civil unions? Yes. Gay marriage? No.
As Obama sought a U.S. Senate seat in 2004, he told the Windy City Times, "I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. ..."
I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue.
I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation.
He described his hesitation to endorse same-sex marriage as strategic and political.
What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. â¦
I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. â¦
Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.
Guy is a politician and a government official.
It's his job to find a compromise and push a consensus in the best interest of the citizens.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Reddit needed to make a policy change to keep the site profitable. They knew the changes would make fedora wearing neckbeards like yourself start foaming at the mouth so they made her the "fall guy". The changes were enacted and your anger was directed towards her instead of the site. Mission accomplished.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
More and more, on more and more issues that even tangentially impinge on White Male Privilege, Slashdot postings start to read like a thread on Stormfront.
any gay man or lesbian who votes for Hillary is a fool
Which party would you say has more people who would like to ban same-sex marriage? Trump might not want it, but I can see him giving it away in exchange for the GOP supporting one of his policies.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So you're a euro and are upset with Americans trying to take a different path than the Europeans and proud of their distinct traditions and philosophies?
This is why increasingly we are disinterested in subsidizing your own freedom.
Shitting on the US is not in your interest, sport. The EU is collapsing and you are weak. You have a resurgent Russia to the East, a resurgent Islamic agenda to the south east... and your population and culture are so compromised that if a real nasty shock hits you... Well, god help you because I sure as fuck won't.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Might want to read up on Supreme Court rulings. Political donations are political speech and are protected by the First Amendment. Last time I checked Trump wasn't advocating for the take over of Syria.
because that's how lefties think. They think politics descends from biology. Sure it's hella bigoted and racist, but that's how they roll.
That's a slogan, not a statement of fact.
They're all code words - didn't you get the code-word memo? Banker = Jews, Immigrant = Mexican, State Rights = Racist.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Imagine conservatives refusing to deal with a company because a female employee had an abortion. Why is the same behavior acceptable from the left. I consider myself to be part of the left and I am disgusted.
Trump doesn't have any.
But I'm voting for Trump because of his policies: BUILD WALL DEPORT ILLEGALS BAN MUSLIMS BOMB ISIS BEAT CHINA STOP TPP.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Ellen Pao, your 5 minutes are long over. You tried to pull this victimizing, 'think of everyone but the white men' routine before, and it blew up in your face when it came to light that YOU were the problem all along. Please move on with your life. You're not a social justice warrior, you're a gods damned bully, and a predator.
Another shill pretending to speak for Europeans, when in fact most Europeans are aghast that we'd even let someone like Trump get the nomination.
For one thing, he's promised to withdraw from NATO. The only Europeans that are anxious to see that happen are Putin and his circle of mobsters.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Oh, I thought we had shills from Correcting the Record in online discussions. Where is the Trump equivalent?
Peter Thiel is proving that even idiots can become billionaires.
So you can see why he would be attracted to Trump.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
He's sexually attracted to members of the same sex. Unless "gay" != "homosexual", you're talking nonsense.
It would be wrong to attack someone for supporting Hitler too
Utter bollocks. If that is the conclusion you reach, something is wrong with your premises or logic.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Oh, the irony of a so-called inclusive project that seeks to exclude folks it disagrees with thus proving that inclusivity is not their goal but rather the power to force others to do their bidding.
Apparently diversity only relates to skin color, gender, and sexual orientation. No need to worry about diversity of opinion, beliefs, or political or moral outlooks on life. Those can only stunt your operations. Just skin color (preferably NOT white), gender (prefer NOT male) and sexual orientation (prefer not heterosexual) are what can get you diversity.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
FACTCHECK!
FACTCHECK!
I believe it was a Radio Shack clock :)
He does have sex with men, but he isn't part of the culture. It's disingenuous to call him gay.
No true homosexual?
Good thing he isn't also not really Scottish.
Republicans, obviously. But same-sex marriage to me is just a "nice to have" feature, not something that I consider essential.
I don't see that situation arising. If it came to that, I certainly see Hillary trading away gay marriage or gay rights in exchange for the GOP supporting one of her policies, because that's the kind of choice she has made in the past. I think she ought to be punished for that at the ballot box, otherwise, she is just going to take the gay vote for granted.
When it comes to gay marriage, Trump might appoint supreme court justices that overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. But the issue isn't important enough to me to make it the basis for my decision. Ultimately, the question of gay marriage should be settled by law, not the courts.
That is a good question. From a gay and lesbian point of view, I see little practical difference between the two candidates.
As for other policies, instead of listening to the shrill rhetoric and insults, I suggest just looking at the issues and actual policies of the candidates and parties.
It's also important to realize that voting is a compromise, and that you need to decide how important an issue is to you. Thirty years ago, social liberalism was very important to me because social conservatism was a real threat; but gay rights, marriage equality, women's rights, minority rights, and abortion are reasonably secure for now, so economic issues are more important in choosing a candidate.
Wasn't Clinton that started the fund. I have nothing against most other Democrats.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's more complicated than that for me.
Clinton's political program is a mixed bag for me: there are some good policies in there, and some horrible policies. I don't know which of those she actually wants to enact, and which ones are just political theater. Her program is so bloated that it's anybody's guess what she will actually do. I do know that she has the political power to push through things she cares about.
Trump's actual political program (rather than his rhetoric) seems less extreme to me than Clinton's. The parts I disagree with are mostly in areas I don't care about. Most importantly, he is so politically weak that he won't be able to do much anyway.
On balance, I think Clinton loses in that comparison as the riskier choice.
Yes, conservative judges might reverse gay marriage, and that would be unfortunate. But Clinton's appointees would likely impose serious limits on free speech, civil liberties, and business, and that would be very harmful to the country. Fear of the kind of justices Clinton would appoint is another big reason I won't vote for her.
No, she won't take on "risky projects". Instead, under Clinton, we can look forward to a gradual erosion of civil liberties and a gradual increase of handouts to big business, unions, non-profits, the health care industry and Wall St, and she will be very good at making that happen.
Trump will get into shouting matches with both parties and not get much of anything done. He's lucky if he gets a supreme court justice appointed and his budgets passed. He'll be a do-nothing caretaker for the next four years while the country can figure out how to dig ourselves out of this mess.
This reminds me a bit of the novel Jennifer Government.
In the future, I wonder if the way we will put pressure on our politicians is by using our money to pressure commercial entities to support the candidates we do or don't like. Pepsi might be who you buy if you're a Democrat. Dell is for Republicans, etc.
We know they're all bought and paid for, but we can switch brands if they end up backing the wrong politicians. That would have them get smarter about who they support, etc.
You're missing the point here. Rarely politicians hold deep convictions and govern by them; that's a reasonable thing, just as it is reasonable when their convictions change; those don't tend to survive in politics. Often politicians state opinions mainly because their pollsters and advisors say them that doing so will maximize their success; when these people change their public opinions, it's an attempt at manipulation; that's the category Hillary Clinton is in. Yet other politicians will just say whatever comes to mind, with no filter, and won't have a consistent message at all; that's Trump for you. Which of the latter two is worse everybody needs to decide for themselves.
Unfortunately, politicians really haven't changed that much, only the labels. Many of the same ideas behind eugenics and racial segregation still bedevil 21st century politics in the US and Europe.
They should have a choice. What does that have to do with federal funding for Planned Parenthood? Are you saying that the only way people have a choice in anything is if the federal government funds it?
Had a friend start a company. She was looking to brand herself as empowering women in a men dominated industry by hiring all women and wanted to not only advertise and broadcast that fact but get grants for said same purpose.
Not wanting to get into an argument I simply said to watch what she said or how explicit she was as I'm pretty sure that doing so isn't exactly legal.
I've noticed it elsewhere as well, where over the past several years the pendulum has swung in the totally other direction. Where almost all management and most hires are women now. Is this the end result of affirmative action, or just the other side of unconscious decision making processes where women start to outnumber men in manager (hiring) roles?
To further this argument, calling out political supporters is basically McCarthyism revisited. I'm not sure the "left" wants to revisit that era.
On the other hand, maybe this behavior is a natural reaction of narcissistic people holding the upper hand (aka the instinct to "bully"). The instinct of the bully is to attempt to undermine any support for the person being bullied by calling out and shaming/shunning anyone that shows any support for the target. By maintaining a culture of fear, the bully is able to project their power and further their agenda.
It may be natural, but we can be better than that. We *should* be better than that.
Boycotts, divestment, and disassociation are not at all undemocratic. And they are perfectly legitimate expressions of disagreement.
Look... you or anyone else absolutely have the right to be an asshole. Your own freedom of speech gives you that right. Your freedom of association gives you the right to support assholes. But you're not entitled to anything at all beyond that. *I* have the absolute right not to give you my money. My own freedom of association absolutely gives me the right not to support assholes. My own freedom of speech gives me the right to say so. You (or Donald Trump or Peter Thiel or Y-Combinator) are not at all entitled to anything from ME. And it's not undemocratic for me to associate with better people or to give my money to better businesses.
Imagine all the people...
Nope, David Duke is still a Republican.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I just note that we seem to be hearing quite a lot from anonymous cowards purporting to speak on behalf of all Europeans, claiming to support Trump while regurgitating Kremlin views.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Actually, what they're doing is the definition of liberal progressivism, also known as "regressive liberalism". I had to look it up because I wanted to know why I, a traditional liberal (free as in speech), was getting lumped in with all the "check your privilege" types. And while I agree that it appears anti-democratic for one company to severe ties with another due to ideological differences, both parties are exercising their freedom of choice. Believe it or not, it's actually logically consistent. It's just one more casualty of this toxic election.
That's simply because being a partisan is not a federally protected class... Actually, it's kind of weird that being a partisan isn't federally protected after that whole McCarthyism thing, but I guess that whole thing is a distant memory...
Blaming all startups now in or that came out of the incubator is completely and totally unjust. Thiel's private political decision, much as I disapprove, is not their responsibility or any of their doing. So punishing these startups for that is not just.
Pao rejected the idea that Thiel's donation could be dismissed as political speech. "We agree that people shouldn't be fired for their political views, but this isn't a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence," she wrote. "Giving more power to someone whose ascension and behavior strike fear into so many people is unacceptable. His attacks on black, Mexican, Asian, Muslim, and Jewish people, on women, and on others are more than just political speech; fueled by hate and encouraging violence, they make each of us feel unsafe."
Pao ignores the fact that just like all the unsubstantiated claims against Trump by people who have worked with him Hillary has a list of accusers as well like her former Chef who says she call a staff member the N-word. Then we have now a nearly endless trail of documentation proving that the DNC arranged for violence at Trump rallies. Hillary can't be conclusively tied to that but given Schultz proved to be in her pocket in terms of rigging the primary elections against Bernie, its hard to imaging Hillary was not at least aware. Keep in mind Hillary never denounced the DNC for the racist e-mails, election tampering, possible voter fraud etc. The media somehow gives her a pass on this while Trump is 'required' by the media to explicit denounce any unsavory groups that endorse him.
Pao plainly does not have a deep understanding of this issues if she thinks making a campaign contribution to a major party candidate isn't political speech. If nothing else the argument you are supporting the platform and agenda not the man holds. People like Pao disgust me! She basically condemns anyone who does not agree with her and destroys them thru manufactured outrage. She does this knowing full well that the outrage machine happens to be aligned with here political views so she does not have to worry about this back firing.
We know the truth Ellen, you are where you are because people are afraid of you will accuse them of being misogynists or racists, or whatever people are most upset about next week and your media buddies will help you pile on and rail road that person no matter what the facts are. My guess is you have done this your entire career, you have probably been at it since before college. There are plenty of successful female executives out there who succeed by being good at what they do, people like you taint their achievements. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
a joke, that's what they are
He's got things he's bitching about not solutions thus no policies.
That you actually believe the wall thing is a bit of a worry though. Why do you believe the wall thing? Have you ever been outside a city or do you just have utterly no idea of what sort of scale is being spoken about?
You spelled Trump incorrectly.
Google "donald trump constitution fail" for many details.
Here is a good article to show that Trump is the one you should be taking about but have been conned by a childish "she's doing it too" playground argument:
http://www.politico.com/magazi...
The Chinamen have a pretty sweet wall. WE CAN'T LET THE CHINESE BEAT US ON WALLS.
(fuck the lameness filter)
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Sorry I thought you were serious above. It's getting very difficult to tell the difference between some Trump advocates and a joke.
Nope, it's true. It's why the Left thinks all gays, women, blacks, hispanics, etc should "by default", vote Democrat. Look at all the harassment Milo gets. Look at all the shit Caitlyn Jenner got for being republican. You cannot find me ONE instance of a person in any of those "precious groups" that does not vote Democrat, and is still respected socially. And every member of those groups that is publicly republican is socially shamed and ostracized. I just gave you two examples of this....find me one that is not called an uncle tom kind of character by the Left. If the Left doesn't think politics descends form biology, then you ahve to show me at least one example where that rule is violated. So show me one person who is still accepted by the left as a part of a minority group, even thought they are rightwing.
No, I'm serious, I want a wall. I think the idea that we can build the interstate highway system, send a man to the moon, but HOLY SHIT A WALL THAT'S CRAZY TALK is a ridiculous argument. Walls aren't hard.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
No, that's only what you guys tell yourselves. You also say other cute things like, "reality has a liberal bias". You need to read the wikileaks emails from the first batch and see how they really talk about these groups when they think no one can hear. They are just a racist, bigoted, and homophobic as you believe any republican to be. Watch Hillary's America - you haven't yet figured out that the Democrats are fabricating all this "tolerance" merely to appeal to you. They *pretend* to be tolerant and it attracts other people who *pretend* to be tolerant, and then allows all of you to *pretend* that the other side is full of evil intolerant people. Its all virtue signaling, and it's what you guys do best. The fact that so many minorities are voting that way only proves how effective it is, not how truthful.
She only changed her tune when the majority of Americans started favoring gay marriage
...Isn't this exactly the way a representative of the people should act?
She ran Reddit into the ground by making it a hotbed of liberal idiocy and now she's trying to fuck up Silicon Valley.
This country is a joke.
Pax Vobiscum
Dumbass, check out your history. It was Republicans that gave women the vote. It was Republicans that freed the slaves, It was Republicans that sent in the Army to allow black school kids to go to a white school. It was Republicans that tried to pass the voting rights act, which Johnson defeated - THREE times! He later signed it kicking and screaming saying - "I'll have those N****** voting for democrats for the next 200 years." True, look it up.
Truth hurts when you know you've been lied to all your life I bet.
As a donor to Planned Parenthood, and someone who caucuses and usually votes Democrat, let me tell you that Sanger believed in eugenics. Lincoln wasn't pushing for racial equality, either, although he did want to eliminate slavery. Lots of people who wound up doing good things had beliefs most of us would consider offensive today.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
This statement equally applies to Hillary Clinton.
Both are absolutely unacceptable, and I can not in good conscience vote for either of them, and won't.
I'm currently wavering between voting for Johnson, or writing in Cthulhu.
But this witch-hunt going after anyone who expresses support for Trump is outright fascism.
"An individual may give a maximum of: $2,700 per election to a Federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.2 Notice that the limit applies separately to each election. Primaries, runoffs and general elections are considered separate elections. $5,000 per calendar year to a PAC."
Please explain how an individual can give such a large sum to a campaign and not violate the law?
Ok had to click through to the actual NYT article, it is split between a number of pacs and the campaign. So I guess I am to believe Trump won't be beholden to his few high ticket donors?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
In short, no. In a representative democracy, our representatives are supposed to deliberate and study issues in detail, explain their views to the people, and then make decisions, taking into account both what their constituents want and what they themselves conclude is the right thing to do. And those decisions may sometimes be different from their personal beliefs.
So, it is fine to say "I believe in gay marriage, and here is why, but as your representative, I am not going to vote for it until I have convinced you." Or "I believe in gay marriage, and here is why, but political reality forces me to compromise ... and here is why".
What is not OK is to say "I am going to lie to you about my positions to get into power, and then I'm going to do what I think is best for your interests." That is Hillary's approach, and it is not how a representative democracy is supposed to work.
... You're the morons that created that situation.
The mishandling of Russian relations and the abandonment of Iraq lead to the current situation.
You people take no responsibility for anything.
Russia is a great power in the world and the cold war is over. We have an opportunity to ally and cooperate on common interests. The Europeans especially in the West are of almost no military value at this point. If we want aid in securing strategic peace in Eurasia, then we are greatly benefited by cooperation with Russia. Add to that, Eastern Europe which generally has a fierce determination to remain independent. We can use their interest to remain free... which we will support and reinforce as a bulwark against any future Russian adventurism whilst directing Russian power either to keep their sphere stable or to advance them into the middle east and various other places to maintain stability.
As to the Islamic Caliphate, that would be the stupid Fabians fucking that one up. Remember the Arab Spring? Remember Libya? Remember who left Iraq thus creating ISIS in the first place?
As to European Caliphates... that is the EU and Merkel. They opened their doors. They intentionally brought in hundreds of thousands of people that they didn't know, didn't vet, and by any half way rational estimation they had to know were full of radicals.
They did that. Not the US. And how you put that at the feet of Trump is baffling.
What is more, both Obama and Merkel are if anything doubling down on the whole thing. So if you want it continue... elect Hillary. Because she's going to try and do that to the US as well. We're already seeing forced settlements of "Syrian" refugees in the US contrary to the wishes of the local communities. They are given housing, they are given food... and everything is paid for with your tax dollars.
Look, keep it up. I'm not going to stay here whilst my country is destroyed around me. The Pacific is full of beautiful tropical islands. I will leave and sip fruity drinks with island girls if you idiots keep this crap up.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
How do you figure? How could Clinton get anything done with the House and Senate being controlled by the republicans?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Fairly easily, given that half of her policies come straight from old Republican manifestos.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
So, can you do a net effect of this behavior on the social and political environment of area, the industry, and the nation?
Because what you're saying is that a chilling of the political climate where anyone that is a threat to the one party rule of the united states is effectively exiled or silenced is fine... So long as you do it a certain way.
So... one party rule is fine I guess. All hail Empress Clinton and her scion Chesley who will one day give birth to the future kings and queens of the Kingdom of America.
We either have a republic where people have freedom of expression or we don't. You want to play the game of "well they're just deciding"... fine... same thing happened with the Mozilla CEO. This is a pattern.
Humans have evolved to recognize patterns. It is a survival trait. Its one of the things we're good at. You're either bad at something that everyone else on this planet is good at... or you're just pretending to be stupid.
Which is it?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I didn't say the DNC ordered it so asking for evidence of a claim I didn't make is a strawman. I ignore strawmen. What you noticed was me not engaging with a logical fallacy.
As to sources, you're now conflating the strawman with a different argument tirely which means you're issuing your own strawman. I'm only noting that because you apparently don't know what a strawman is or why I'm not obligated to take it seriously.
As to patterns, what claim have I made that you can quote that relates to this issue that I have to validate. Keep in mind, if you demand any such thing I'll note some kind of claim you've made and demand a source as well just to discourage you from attempting to bog me down with link searching. A lot of people on these sorts of boards like to use that as a tactic. They just ask for sources for everything... why the sun rises in the east and then why it sets in the west. Why is water wet. Citation needed! Etc etc. And to contain that, I'm going to hold you to whatever standard you hold me to. You are not my auditor, you are not a judge, you're just another person on the internet. And if you want to play games, then I'll treat you as such.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
FYI, Hillary isn't quite a billionaire, but frankly isn't far behind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
So, when you talk about Trump's money, it makes people wonder if you are willfully blind, or just ignorant.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?