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.

30 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 ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      is he really that weird and creepy?

      I have met Peter a few times, and listened to him talk many times. He is certainly weird, but I don't think he is creepy. He has a lot of original idea and insights, although many of them are ... well, weird ... like his idea to start an independent libertarian utopia on an ocean platform. He is a self-described libertarian, so I was surprised to see him endorse Donald. But the American people voted for change, and if Peter lands a spot in Trump's administration, it certainly won't be business as usual.

    3. Re:he bet on the winner by ATMAvatar · · Score: 5, Funny

      like his idea to start an independent libertarian utopia on an ocean platform.

      Would you kindly vote Trump?

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    4. 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.

    5. 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).

    6. 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...

    7. 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.

    8. Re: he bet on the winner by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      How many years before the gas runs out- 5 years, 10 years?

      Most estimates are that America has at least enough to last a century at current usage rates.

      As more areas are explored, and recovery techniques are improved, that estimate is likely to grow.

      There are plenty of good reasons to stop using fossil fuels, but "we are running out" isn't one of them.

    9. Re:he bet on the winner by jandersen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Remind me who were the ones screaming people down with accusations of "racist, misogynist, nazi, hitler",

      True - as one of the people who feared the election of Trump as a very bad thing indeed, I have to admit that people on my side did tend to do that, and that was wrong.

      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.

      - but as this illustrates, your side engage in exactly the same tactics. And that is why American politics is broken: there is no honest and open-minded debate to be found, at least not in public. It is tempting to point the finger at lack of education or blinkered religion, both of which probably contribute, in some way, but I have met people who were both illiterate and deeply religious, but still managed to teach me a thing or two about open-mindedness and being willing to listen.

      I don't know the solution - I don't think any of you guys do either - but I think it is very likely that the way to the future, from where we are now, can go two ways: either towards ever deeper conflict between two almost exact halves of the population, perhaps ending in civil war, or people can decide that they have to start reaching out to their "enemies" and seek compromise and understanding. There is still time to make the better choice, but the longer you continue down the path of division, the harder will it be to heal the wounds.

      So, why don't we start the process here and now? It isn't really all that hard - it is of course necessary to state your viewpoints and your grievances, but it is also your duty to be willing to listen to the other side and try to take on board some of it. Let me give you an example: I think the Trump is an absolutely appalling twit - based on the way he appears to insult without thinking, and apparently lies without shame and so on. This is my subjective view of him, and I may be wrong. I absolutely understand and accept the anger that is felt by his supporters; they happen to be mostly male, white and working class, but the gross indecency of the ever growing inequality in the US is unversal and hurts all except the few that richer - one of whom happens to be Trump, by the way. So, there you have it - it may only be a small, symbolic gesture by one individual, but that is all any of us have to give, and it is genuine; I really do want the situation to improve, and I really am willing to give Trump the chance to prove himself, but it won't matter unless everybody else is willing to do the same.

    10. 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.

    11. Re:he bet on the winner by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The debate on abortion in the US is legally messy. There's one faction that campaigns for abortion on demand without restriction, one side that campaigns for a total ban with maybe the narrowist exception to save life. The majority of people don't actually support either position, but because of the importance of the Roe case it's not possible to campaign for a compromise: The pro-choice faction needs to defend Roe at all costs, and they know that if they lose it the pro-life faction will sieze the chance to rush straight to the opposite extreme in many states. There is no possibility for anything in between.

    12. 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. Re:It's the transition team, people. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

    You very, very rarely go from "transition team" to "cabinet position".

    Trump chose his vice-president to lead his transition team.

    This is a guy who, as governor of Indiana, when facing a breakout of AIDS in the rural community due to drug use, chose "prayer" as his only solution.

    This is a guy who signed a bill with a government mandate that families hold funerals for miscarried or aborted fetuses.

    This is a guy who as governor, instructed law enforcement to investigate women who miscarried to make sure they weren't aborting their fetuses.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  5. Re:It's the transition team, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Good. I want the Republicans to go all in: have Roe v. Wade overturned, ban abortion, eliminate the fillibuster, repeal the ACA, lower taxes on the top earners while shifting the tax burdern to the lower and middle classes, have gay marriage overturned, everything. Make things as painful as possible for as many people as possible. Most people, it seems, only respond to pain; make them feel it.

  6. Re:It's the transition team, people. by physicsphairy · · Score: 5, Informative

    mandate that families hold funerals for miscarried or aborted fetuses

    This was so crazy that I had to look it up. Turns out "hold a funeral" is "dispose of remains properly" -- the bill required that fetal remains be either interred or incinerated. Generally speaking that would be the responsibility of the healthcare facility in custody of the remains.

    Tell me straight, is "require families to hold a funeral" truly the most accurate and reasonable way you could come up with to indicate the nature of the bill, or is it a purposeful deception?

  7. 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

  8. 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
  9. Re:It's the transition team, people. by lucm · · Score: 5, Funny

    The hiring of the *homophobic bigot* Peter Thiel just goes to show how awful they are.

    He's also sexist, since he won't have sex with women.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  10. 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.

  11. Cleaning the swamp? by Kwyj1b0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been hearing a lot of talk about "Give Trump a chance", and "let's judge him when he gets to office" by people who voted against him, but are practical enough to want a good leader.

    However, this seems to be a pattern with Trump - using donors or people who already agree with him in key positions and advisors. His economic team consists of big donors, and discredited hacks like Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow (this is non-partisan; even economic advisors of previous republicans presidents don't agree with Moore). He takes an climate-change skeptic (Myron Ebell) to lead the EPA transition.

    Yet, I haven't heard a peep from most people who supported Trump about this. The "blue collar" crowd who supported him was about people sick of "Establishment politics", and instead wanted someone "looking out for the working class". Trump's isolationist and trade-war leaning policies, and embrace of supply-side economics have a proven record of hurting workers. Together with clear cronyism (to be fair, this was obvious before the election), I'm surprised that the "blue collar" crowd isn't even slightly upset.

    Trump's supporters seem to still be in the post-game high - "Our team won!"; are they going to hold him to his (crazy) campaign promises? Are they going to expect him to loosen libel laws, build a wall, bring back sweatshop factory jobs? A co-worker remarked "Trump's victory speech was a step towards healing", instead of realizing that the stirred up crazy is still out there; he doesn't get credit for not being as crazy enough to follow through on his campaign promises.

  12. 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/
    1. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by AaronW · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My sister similarly has major health issues and relies on a number of provisions of Obamacare in order to stay alive. Losing insurance for her would be a death sentence. Several provisions of Obamacare are helping to keep her alive and a productive member of society:
      - Nobody can be turned away due to pre-existing conditions.
      - All medications must be covered (minus deductible) though some may require petitioning.
      - No lifetime limits on care

      As it is, my family has to help subsidize her care since the monthly deductible on one of her medications is $500/month and she's on a teacher's salary that doesn't pay a lot. Without insurance her medication jumps to $5000/month.

      My mother also at one time had to have a procedure similar to an abortion when the fetus died and had to be extracted. If they're so anti-abortion, why not work on ways to make it much less needed by offering more birth control and pre-natal healthcare to women? To me it just seems that they want to make women second-class citizens by legislating their bodies rather than help make it so the procedure is needed far less. People like Pence also seem to go out of their way to make it harder for wanted children by fighting against programs like CHIP.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    2. Re:Oh boy, not this shit again by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

      "If they're so anti-abortion, why not work on ways to make it much less needed by offering more birth control and pre-natal healthcare to women?"

      Because the opposition to abortion doesn't exist in isolation. It has to coexist with other ideological commitments, and two of them are in opposition to this action.

      There's a libertarian ideology which overlaps with abortion opposition. This one doesn't actually care about abortion either way, but it strongly opposes any form of government-imposed intervention. This one says that the government should not have the power to dictate what medical services an insurance company or healthcare provider should be required to provide: This is a transaction between a service provider and customer.

      There's also a religious ideology. This one opposes abortion, but it also opposes contraception - something seen as an enabler of sinful fornication. From the religious perspective, non-marital sex is an inherently immoral action: Even if contraception reduced the number of abortions greatly, you'd only be exchanging one evil for another.

      There are many ideologies competing, and individuals often subscribe to multiple ones which partially conflict - this means there must be some form of compromise or reconciliation to make them fit together.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.