Slashdot Mirror


Peter Thiel Is Joining Donald Trump's Transition Team (theverge.com)

Peter Thiel's time spent campaigning for Donald Trump during the election season has paid off. According to a statement released today, Donald Trump has named Thiel to the executive committee of his presidential transition team. The Verge reports: Thiel, who donated $1.25 million to Trump's campaign late in the election cycle, mostly stood alone among colleagues in his support for Trump, who was publicly disdained in the Valley. Thiel's support came at a cost to businesses like startup accelerator Y Combinator, which soon attracted negative publicity for having Thiel as a part-time adviser. Thiel also brought criticism to Facebook, where he is a board member, although Mark Zuckerberg defended his place at the company. Thiel further angered First Amendment supporters by bankrolling the Hulk Hogan lawsuit that brought down Gawker. Thiel said before the election that he would find some way of working with the Trump administration, and although his final role is unclear, his appointment to Trump's executive committee signals the relationship will indeed continue.

18 of 820 comments (clear)

  1. he bet on the winner by turkeydance · · Score: 5, Insightful

    he reaps the rewards.

    1. Re:he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bully? Remind me who were the ones screaming people down with accusations of "racist, misogynist, nazi, hitler", etc to anyone who dared to disagree with them? Logical debate was not permitted. It always devolved into name calling and outrageous comparisons to hitler or the kkk.

      The marxists that make up today's left-wing movement absolutely despise the American system and the constitution. They detest free speech and free elections and would just prefer to use government force to cram their ideals down everyone else's throats. They are always demanding more and more power be given to the federal government, not caring about the abuses of power it results in, because they believe it will be THEIR power to use against their opponents. With their loss of this election, they are are slowly realising why such power is not to be granted. Their opponents now wield this power, and they are terrified of it being used against themselves.

    2. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He's already planning to bring coal burning back, push the Keystone Pipeline through, picked Ebell, and it's been less than a week.

      Amazing how little it takes to scare you. Keystone XL pipeline should have been approved a decade ago and coal burning hasn't been shown to be a big deal, let us note once again! And appointing someone not particularly environmentally friendly who still has to survive passage through the Senate. Oh dear, he'll be gassing six million Jews next.

      Maybe you should learn how to manage your fear rather than justifying bullying behavior on the basis of unreasonable fear.

    3. Re: he bet on the winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh noes! He's going to allow pipes to carry oil instead of those so much more environmental methods such as trucks and trains!

      Get your head screwed on, pipelines beat the alternatives, and saying no to them doesn't do what you think it does (because I'm betting you think it means people won't be able to buy oil).

    4. Re:he bet on the winner by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if Peter lands a spot in Trump's administration, it certainly won't be business as usual.

      When is the last time a Republican Administration had an openly gay man in a senior role?

      Peter would make a decent tech adviser to Trump. For all the people bitching that Trump is a raciest, homophobic, bigot... well, you're not paying attention...

    5. Re: he bet on the winner by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He's already planning to bring coal burning back

      Coal isn't dying because of politics. It is dying because of cheap shale gas. Coal is not coming back.

    6. Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure most of us understand the Luddite obstructionism strategy quite well. We have other needs than just using less petroleum. I believe a pipeline does a good job of balancing the relative neediness of the needs.

    7. Re: he bet on the winner by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Less emotionally, abortion rights are really about people having an inherent right to personal autonomy. There's no one reasonably suggesting a ban on tubal ligation or snipping the vas deferens in man's testes, and yet gametes are just as capable of forming a human life as is a zygote or a fetus. So really, all the anti-abortion types just pick their own artificial moment when some cells are a human life, declare that point the point where the state should use its vast powers to prevent interference.

      If you're going to declare that a batch of cells that will eventually become a fully formed human must be protected as legal persons, then why not sperm cells and ova? Why aren't anti-abortion types demanding an end to surgeries that remove the fallopian tubes?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  2. Crony Capitalism by srwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A little conflict of interest here with his company Palantir Technologies and its half a billion dollars in defense contracts.

    1. Re: Crony Capitalism by prefec2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why? Corruption is the standard in Washington. I wait for the day when Trump voters find out that Trump is also part of a rich elite. That they will stay poor and have no jobs. Lower taxes is BTW only good for people who earn that.much that they have to pay them.

  3. Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan by tlambert · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Thiel further angered First Amendment supporters by bankrolling the Hulk Hogan lawsuit that brought down Gawker"

    I'm pretty sure the only people who felt angered at this as a first amendment issue were the folks at Gawker.

    Everyone else was pretty happy to see the Silicon Valley Version of TMZ (Thirty Mile Zone) go away, and quit outing the sexual orientation of businessmen whose only possible reason for being considered "public persons" was having been promoted as such by Gawker in the first place.

    Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan: I personally cheered for the verdict in this case, and am glad Thiel backed it.

  4. wut by ArylAkamov · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thiel further angered First Amendment supporters by bankrolling the Hulk Hogan lawsuit that brought down Gawker.

    I didn't realize publishing private sextapes and ignoring orders from judges was a first amendment issue, but hacked nudes were a completely different, terrible thing to do.

    http://i.imgur.com/CQ5qgvu.jpg

  5. Re: It's the transition team, people. by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Homophobic? Isn't Peter Theil gay?

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  6. Re:pay to play by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about the $750,000 speech Bill Clinton gave for Ericsson 9 days before telecom equipment was left off a list of items prohibited by Iran sanctions. Just a coincidence probably.

  7. Oh boy, not this shit again by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Keystone was shut down because it was primarily a way for Canada to ship oil to China. It's of very, very limited use to the United States while presenting significant risks (oil pipelines break all the time because it's cheaper to let 'em break than to maintain them since the tax payer cleans up the spills).

    Coal burning isn't a big deal because we regulated the fuck out of it. It's not profitable when they coal burners can't externalize their costs by dumping crap into the air and water. That's what shut down coal burning.

    He won't gas jews, but I am worried about my daughter's access to reproductive services. She's got some fairly serious congenital health issues that might someday require an abortion of a non-viable fetus to save her life. This is a surprisingly common occurrence that Mike Pence believes his God forbid's. If you think I'm speaking hyperbole then you don't know the horror of child birth left in God's hands. Educate yourself.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  8. Re:pay to play by Imazalil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're willfully missing the point.

    Clinton is questionable as hell, and that is why she wasn't elected.

    Trump promised (or technically implied so, maybe there is a literal swamp he'll be draining somewhere) to clean things up. Now, he is putting people into government that were throwing money at him. Sure, they're a transition team and all that, but so much for a clean break. Screaming Clinton this, Clinton that doesn't make Trumps hypocrisy any better.

  9. Get used to that being the continued response by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Humans are sadly very tribal so the Trump supporters are going to be unwilling to admit he's not what they wanted him to be. One common denial tactic you'll see is a redirection where someone points out that Trump or his people do something bad, is to point out a time that the other team, Secretary Clinton in particular, did something similar. To them that justifies it in the sense "We are still in the right because the other guy would have been even worse." It is a way to deflect acknowledging criticism.

    You saw the same thing with supporters of President Obama. When he was criticized for things that went against campaign promises, such as offering government transparency, supporters inevitable dredged up President Bush. Basically since President Bush had done something they would argue was worse, that would excuse what President Obama did.

    Same shit, different side. Expect to see plenty of it as there is essentially no way at all that Trump can keep most of his promises. Many that see them selves as on that "team" won't want to acknowledge criticism as valid, so they'll deny it when they can, or use redirection like this when they can't.

  10. Re:Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be f by Pascoea · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your daughter's "reproductive rights" will be fine

    Unless you live in Texas (down to one operating abortion clinic, last I heard) or anywhere else in the country that feels as though the rights of cells outweighs the rights of a living breathing human being.

    You kid yourself if you don't think this particular issue is going to come up in an administration that is 100% controlled by the Republicans. That isn't a Trump bash or a poke at the republicans. It is an observation based on facts stated by those particular people. Bible Belt Republicans were licking their chops, looking at Roe v Wade as soon as the election results started coming in.