
Peter Thiel and the Undecided Trump Voter - arigold123
http://abovethelaw.com/2016/10/peter-thiel-and-the-undecided-trump-voter/
======
brickmort
The mentality of "if your opinions don't align with mine, you should be
silenced and banned" is the exact reason that I began moving away from the
Left, despite still considering myself socially liberal. Speaking for myself,
I hit a point where I realized that any slight questioning or dissent of the
general ideology was returned with vehement backlash by the left.

I would consider most undecided voters to be sane, rational people with good
consciences because I admit that both candidates have their warts and what it
all boils down to is what would best for the country. With that said, the
undecided voter knows better than to even think about publicly expressing that
they _might_ consider voting Trump, out of fear of having their property
stolen or burned, reputation tarnished, etc.

The left has been hijacked by extreme left-wing groups taking the podium from
classical liberals, and the party itself is imploding under the repeated
revelations from Wikileaks and Project Veritas. It truly is an election that
will go down in history.

~~~
norea-armozel
"The mentality of "if your opinions don't align with mine, you should be
silenced and banned" is the exact reason that I began moving away from the
Left, despite still considering myself socially liberal."

Being banned on social media or not invited to a conference isn't illegal
since your free to speak and associate with whom you wish. If Twitter/Facebook
or some private organization doesn't want to associate with you doesn't mean
you're forced to not speak. You just can't speak with or through them.

As for the rest of your comment it just smacks of naivety of someone who's not
studied political history. First, classical liberalism use to be the left but
ceased to be the left the moment it shifted rightward toward sympathizing with
fascists as what happened in countries like Germany under the Weimer Republic.
Second, left-wing groups that you deem extreme in the United States are fairly
moderate in terms of global left-right politics. Asking for LGBT people to be
added to the protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 isn't
extreme. If such legal extensions are extreme to you then you need to ask
yourself if you're actually a liberal and not some Burkean libertarian
conservative.

~~~
dmix
The OP didn't say it was illegal, nor should that be the metric for deciding
that such an idea is entirely distasteful and not something you want to
associate yourself with.

Any tech/business/non-political conference that decides to go through each
persons political leanings and decides whether or not the group finds them
satisfactory before allowing them to talk is such a dangerous idea IMO. It is
indeed a voluntary action and one that I want nothing to do with. The fact
that so many people on HN can't see the problems with mixing partisan politics
with business in order to shame another persons views scares me.

If this was any other forum such as a news site's comment section or one of
those protests by inexperienced university kids then I would be more
understanding. But I don't believe I can hold the people on HN or in the tech
community to that low standard... they should really know better. Sadly the
media feeds into this hysteria.

This Less Wrong article has never been more relevant:

"People go funny in the head when talking about politics."
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/)

or better yet
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/gt/a_fable_of_science_and_politics/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/gt/a_fable_of_science_and_politics/)

~~~
norea-armozel
"The OP didn't say it was illegal, nor should that be the metric for deciding
that such an idea is entirely distasteful and not something you want to
associate yourself with."

So it's distasteful that I don't want to associate with people of my own free
will? Are you serious?

"The fact that so many people on HN can't see the problems with mixing
partisan politics with business in order to shame another persons views scares
me."

What scares me if folks like you that want to use force of another kind to
obligate me to associate with people I wouldn't urinate on if they were on
fire. Seriously, I would never work for the likes of Peter Thiel under any
circumstances. I have my standards, you should too.

"If this was any other forum such as a news site's comment section or one of
those protests by inexperienced university kids then I would be more
understanding. But I don't believe I can hold the people on HN or in the tech
community to that low standard... they should really know better. Sadly the
media feeds into this hysteria."

Sorry, but none of that gives a moral theory of obligation for me to work for
or with people like Peter Thiel.

"This Less Wrong article has never been more relevant."

I don't give two craps about LessWrong pseudo-intellectualism. Either present
a theory that I'm obligated to associate with the likes of Peter Thiel or
admit you have no moral theory or basis from which to obligate me or others to
associate with those we choose freely not to associate with.

~~~
Nadya
Separating yourself from people with differing views doesn't do either side
good. It actively works to reinforce an "Us vs Them" mentality. Instead of
speaking to each other, you speak past one another. Two groups unable to
communicate with words tend to eventually resort to weapons to "get the other
side to understand".

On some level - I think it is fine to choose your social contacts. Taken to
extreme, as many people seem to do on social media, filters your social bubble
to only "Other Yous". I feel doing that actively harmful to one's self.
Stifling their own view of the world and limiting it only to the parts they
agree with. Nobody is saying you should go grab a beer with Peter Thiel. It is
better to try and understand each other's opinions, even if you disagree, than
to demonize or dehumanize anyone for their beliefs.

The line between "Those people are violent and dangerous and I wouldn't save
their lives if I could" to "Those people should be rounded up and killed for
the benefit of everyone else" has been historically thin and often crossed. If
they're such bad people, does the world really need them? It's an easy and
rational conclusion to make if you truly believe it.

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter and all that. It's
better to understand the other viewpoint than to assert that it is wrong,
simply for "being wrong".

~~~
norea-armozel
"Separating yourself from people with differing views doesn't do either side
good. It actively works to reinforce an "Us vs Them" mentality. Instead of
speaking to each other, you speak past one another. Two groups unable to
communicate with words tend to eventually resort to weapons to "get the other
side to understand"."

Kinda hard to listen to someone who thinks me being transgender makes me
subhuman or mentally incompetent. It's a basic standard that you have to see
the other person as a person first before any meaningful exchange is possible.
And to assert it is my moral duty to make them understand is nonsensical.

"aken to extreme, as many people seem to do on social media, filters your
social bubble to only "Other Yous". I feel doing that actively harmful to
one's self. Stifling their own view of the world and limiting it only to the
parts they agree with."

I've ranged the political spectrum more than most. From nationalism (with some
racialist notions) to currently a Mutualist. I seriously doubt there's
anything I can learn from the likes of Ben Shapiro when it comes to
conservatism. Those folks are light weights compared to George Will and the
late William F Buckley Jr. If I want to refresh my memory on conservative
ideology I got dozens of essays by more competent people from years past to
read. I don't need to listen someone spew an Obama birther theory to expand my
horizons.

"The line between "Those people are violent and dangerous and I wouldn't save
their lives if I could" to "Those people should be rounded up and killed for
the benefit of everyone else" has been historically thin and often crossed. If
they're such bad people, does the world really need them? It's an easy and
rational conclusion to make if you truly believe it."

Yeah cause me not listening to a bigoted relative tell me that water
fluoridation turned me a "tranny queer" is going to lead to people putting
them in a concentration camp.

In all seriousness, your logic is very tenuous as there's no evidence of a
massive liberal or progressive wave of hate coming. I don't know of any
mainstream liberal or even a decently read anarchist advocating for the
extermination of social conservatives. Rather I read every day CNS or Free
Republic or Townhall how being a "transgendered" is "dangerous and
delusional." So frankly, I'm not gonna be friends with such people. Would you?

~~~
Nadya
_> Kinda hard to listen to someone who thinks me being transgender makes me
subhuman or mentally incompetent. It's a basic standard that you have to see
the other person as a person first before any meaningful exchange is possible.
And to assert it is my moral duty to make them understand is nonsensical._

It is extremely difficult to treat people as people when they refuse you the
same respect. The answer isn't to step down to their level though. It may be
"childish" or "naive" advice but it is a virtue I hold myself to all the same.

 _> I've ranged the political spectrum more than most. From nationalism (with
some racialist notions) to currently a Mutualist. I seriously doubt there's
anything I can learn from the likes of Ben Shapiro when it comes to
conservatism. Those folks are light weights compared to George Will and the
late William F Buckley Jr. If I want to refresh my memory on conservative
ideology I got dozens of essays by more competent people from years past to
read. I don't need to listen someone spew an Obama birther theory to expand my
horizons._

The social-bubble comment was speaking in general, not necessarily of you. I
apologize if I failed to make that clear enough. Choosing who one associates
with is fine. Choosing what they prefer to hear or listen to is fine in
moderation. I believe there is such a thing as "too much filtering" and anyone
regardless of their political leanings is at risk of sealing themselves off in
an echo chamber. A few days on Twitter is enough to see many, many echo
chambers shouting past their opposites and "circlejerking" their own
ideologies. Both sides only increasing the divide between themselves.

 _> In all seriousness, your logic is very tenuous as there's no evidence of a
massive liberal or progressive wave of hate coming. I don't know of any
mainstream liberal or even a decently read anarchist advocating for the
extermination of social conservatives._

We must be in two very, very different social bubbles. Thankfully more
property has been damaged than people killed at this point - but I'm not
looking forward to what the next decade brings. The past twelve years has seen
a drastic and increasingly large ideological gap between people. With the
widening gap - and escalation of threats and "acceptable behavior" has risen,
progressively worsening each year.

One side championing various forms and various levels of "social justice",
some more agreeable than others, and the "racist/sexist/___ist bigots" who
disagree, even if only in extremity. One of these two sides receives a
disproportionate amount of mob justice, internet/social-media brigades, and
dehumanization for "having the wrong beliefs". The bullying behavior is
excused with reasons such as "They deserve it for their bigoted beliefs!" or
"They're racists/sexists/misogynists!". I've noticed the accusations only
sometimes match up with reality and slowly increasing number have been proven
to have been fabricated entirely. Either for attention or an excuse to act out
- I'm not sure which but I do hold a bias in one direction.

Now pardon me, I went off on a tangent below. I left it however, as I feel it
may provide some insight into why I believe what I believe.

Seeing as you twice mentioned transgenderism, surely you have heard of Paul R.
McHugh? Based only on what you've said in your post, I would assume your
thoughts on him are negative: He's a bigot, a "tranny hater", lacks any
credibility, that sort of stuff.

Now here is one of the largest reasons I've come to hold the beliefs I hold:
I've received death threats for the cardinal sin of giving even the smallest
amount of thought towards the idea that he _might_ be right. For most
transexuals, I've now been placed in the "asshole bucket" so to speak. The
fact I identify as the opposite gender _doesn 't matter_. I'm a self-hater, an
"enemy", brainwashed, "not a real transexual", a bigot myself! You name it,
I've been called it by this point.

I don't see these people as being any different than the bigots we have both
dealt with. I'm able to see where they stand. They refuse to see where I
stand. It isn't even an inability to see things my way - but a complete and
utter refusal. I do not see that as being good.

~~~
norea-armozel
"It is extremely difficult to treat people as people when they refuse you the
same respect. The answer isn't to step down to their level though. It may be
"childish" or "naive" advice but it is a virtue I hold myself to all the
same."

Again, is it my moral duty to be a nice person to what amounts to as jerks?
This seems to be something you can't provide so how about you admit I have no
such duty to be nice to said jerks. Because that's really what it boils down
to which seems to me that people want to put up fake politeness when in
practice all that does is stress out the jerk in question and the person
trying to be nice to said jerk.

"Choosing what they prefer to hear or listen to is fine in moderation. believe
there is such a thing as "too much filtering" and anyone regardless of their
political leanings is at risk of sealing themselves off in an echo chamber."

No it's called my moral right of free association. I'm not going to listen to
a David Duke or a Paul McHugh ever. As in never. And there's no reason to
moderate that practice. I don't listen to Neo Nazis. I don't listen to alt-
medicine crackpots. I don't listen to Flat Earthers. So, there's no need to
moderate this when the other side of the argument is categorical wrong. You
don't debate someone who screams that 2 plus 2 equals 5.1. You just shake your
head and move on. Such people have nothing to contribute in terms of my
knowledge base and to entertain them is to waste your time and theirs.

"Thankfully more property has been damaged than people killed at this point -
but I'm not looking forward to what the next decade brings."

Tweets and facebook memes don't constitute assault nor vandalism. And you have
a higher chance today from dying a car wreck of your own making than from a
random act of terrorism.

"The past twelve years has seen a drastic and increasingly large ideological
gap between people. With the widening gap - and escalation of threats and
"acceptable behavior" has risen, progressively worsening each year."

Yeah that gap is widening because certain people (aka social conservatives)
don't want to move on. Specifically, the social conservatives in question
demand LGBT people like myself to be in the closet or forced into mental wards
where I'm to be subjected to "reparative therapies (usually includes things
like ECT aka electro-shock therapy)." So, I'm sorry if I'm not going to listen
to or be polite to such people. Either they need to acknowledge my civil
rights or don't bother interacting with me at all. I don't think what I state
is extreme, it's quite moderate in terms of global political movements. Even
conservatives in other countries agree with my position, so basically there's
no excuse at this point for the US social conservatives to keep fighting these
issues.

"Seeing as you twice mentioned transgenderism, surely you have heard of Paul
R. McHugh? Based only on what you've said in your post, I would assume your
thoughts on him are negative: He's a bigot, a "tranny hater", lacks any
credibility, that sort of stuff."

Yes and he's a complete dirtbag when it comes to defending Cardinal Law from
the investigation on the molestation accusations. Dude went as far as to claim
the victims were deluded or mentally incompetent. So no, I don't listen to
dirtbag rent-o-shrinks that have no moral spine to stand up to his own church
when it has corrupt cardinals and other staff protecting molesters.

"Now here is one of the largest reasons I've come to hold the beliefs I hold:
I've received death threats for the cardinal sin of giving even the smallest
amount of thought towards the idea that he might be right."

Well I don't think you deserve threats but you are a dirtbag by implication at
worse or outright dumb at best. McHugh's thesis holds no water in light of the
various studies so far. All you have to do is search for it on Google Scholar
to see why.

"I don't see these people as being any different than the bigots we have both
dealt with. I'm able to see where they stand. They refuse to see where I
stand. It isn't even an inability to see things my way - but a complete and
utter refusal. I do not see that as being good."

Sorry but McHugh is a dirtbag for so many reasons and no I won't ever
entertain his positions. If this is too much for you it's best you stop
replying to my comments or never engage me again. McHugh is basically the
creationist of gender identity, so I don't listen to said crackpots. Deal with
it.

------
norea-armozel
So I want to address the article directly. People who are "Undecided" Trump
voters as he's described aren't exactly good folks even if they were Decided
Trump voters since many like Ben Shapiro (whom he referenced) are strongly
opposed to personal civil rights when it comes to LGBT people. So all the
author proved to me that there's educated bigots (yes, let's call them what
they are and not shy away from it). Whether it's Shapiro's own belief that
trans women are just mentally ill men or David Duke's beliefs that African
Americans are less intelligent it's all about using such beliefs to control
those whom they disparage. And they're not born out of paternalistic concern,
they're born out of the same base desire to control and dominate people whom
others see as less than human. So, I'm sorry if I don't want to give those
people a hearing who want to do that but this is the modern age where we know
better both scientifically and morally. There's no more room to debate the
moral agency of people who work, live, and serve in the countries around this
world just because they're different from us. I don't think less of the
Shapiros in the world but I do question their intentions. If Ben Shapiro would
support unconditionally my civil rights as a trans woman despite not agreeing
with the prescribed course I've taken to resolve my gender dysphoria then all
would be well. And that's all he and folks like him have to do. I'm not asking
him to pay for my gender transition or to cheer me on. Just afford me my civil
rights (the same rights that protect his faith as a Jew) and move on.

~~~
gragas
Literally every single person I know that's voting for Trump (and there's a
lot of them) has no problem with same-sex marriage, or any other LGBTQ issue
for that matter. The people voting for Trump are the people voting

1\. Against corruption

2\. For specific values of the Republican party, primarily these three things
---in no particular order: (a) lower taxes, less government (b) tighter
immigration (c) preservation of conservative culture and the constitution.

I am a bleeding liberal when it comes to almost all social issues. But I share
the GOP's principles as they relate to fiscal policy and the boundaries of the
government.

~~~
norea-armozel
And literally every Trump supporter I've talked to online opposes anti-
discrimination laws protecting LGBT people like me. So don't expect me to be
nice to them or to associate with them. Sorry but my life, my time, my money,
my way or the highway. If that frightens them then they shouldn't try to talk
to me in the first place.

~~~
gragas
Peter Thiel and I are both LGBT people and we both oppose those laws. It's not
that we "hate gays" or can't tolerate LGBT. Of course not. We simply disagree
with the laws for other reasons (mostly government over-reach and
constitutional issues).

~~~
norea-armozel
you seem to be missing the point. If you oppose civil rights protections for
LGBT people but support them for non-LGBT people then you're a hypocrite. But
more so you're also for the same socioeconomic system that supports oppression
of minorities which means you're acting against your self interest and that of
others. And throwing out that you're LGBT doesn't exempt you from criticism
from anyone especially me since I'm a bi trans woman. So trying that "but I'm
LGBT how can I vote against my self interests" meme doesn't mean much when
your ideology opposes individual freedom and the protection thereof.

~~~
gragas
I simply disagree. I don't believe there is systemic racism or systemic
discrimination. If you provide evidence that there is systemic discrimination
I would love to see it. Mostly all I've seen is people blaming "the system"
for all their failings in life when in reality, no one gives a fuck about what
they look like or what their skin color is. This is just like BLM. I am
absolutely opposed to racism. I just don't think it exists to the extent that
BLM activists think it does. The FBI and numerous other reputable
organizations release information about crime and discrimination each year,
and _absolutely none of it_ provides evidence in favor of "systemic
inequality" against minorities. In fact, it has always done the opposite. It
has always shown that minorities commit overwhelmingly more violent crime
against non-minorities than the other way around.

But that's beside the point. The point I'm trying to make is this: no one
cares that you're trans. And no one cares that I'm bi. We all have the same
rights. We don't need to be granted more "civil rights" because we fall into
some group. Blaming the system is simply not valid unless you can provide
evidence.

~~~
norea-armozel
My comment has nothing to do with systemic anything. It has to do with the
fact that we have laws on the books protecting people on the basis of race,
sex, religion, and political affiliation. Are you saying you think those laws
are a bad idea? If so, then we can't have kind of discussion here. Those civil
rights are a bare minimum for me to consider any social conservative's
opinion. If you don't agree to those terms then move on.

~~~
gragas
You said:

>system that supports oppression of minorities which means you're acting
against your self interest and that of others

To which I said that I don't think we're in a system that does that. I don't
think we're "oppressed by the system". I work with trans people and gay
people. I'm LGBT myself. Everyone is paid the same. No one cares that some of
us are "minorities".

~~~
norea-armozel
"To which I said that I don't think we're in a system that does that. I don't
think we're "oppressed by the system"."

That doesn't imply the system oppresses. People oppress people and systems can
aid or mitigate that oppression.

"I work with trans people and gay people. I'm LGBT myself. Everyone is paid
the same."

Statistics on employment and wages say otherwise.

"No one cares that some of us are "minorities"."

Tell that to the evangelical Christians who number at least 50 million in the
United States and many of whom own and operate businesses which a couple I've
personally worked at while in the closet.

In short, your belief is that there's no culture of oppression among social
conservatives in the work place, housing, or even medical care? Can you back
that up with actual statistics showing that in contradiction to existing
published data? Or are you one of those folks that think your big city life
encompasses the whole of the United States (aka I got mine so screw you
mentality)?

~~~
gragas
I'm sorry that you're so oppressed. I grew up in a very conservative, rural
state, and I think being LGBT has almost nothing to do with success. Here's a
paper that supports my opinion:

"Using data from the 2000 U.S. Census, the authors explore two alternative
explanations for the sexual orientation wage gap: occupational sorting, and
human capital differences. They find that lesbian women earned more than
heterosexual women irrespective of marital status, while gay men earned less
than their married heterosexual counterparts but more than their cohabitating
heterosexual counterparts. Results of a Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition indicate
that the relative wage advantages observed for some groups of lesbians and gay
men were mainly owing to greater levels of human capital accumulation
(particularly education), while occupational sorting had little or no
influence."

[http://www.jstor.org/stable/25249171](http://www.jstor.org/stable/25249171)

I respect the fact that you hold an opinion that opposes mine, but you haven't
convinced me that you are right and I am wrong.

I'm all for disallowing discrimination based on sexuality and gender identity
in the workplace. But I see mandates on pronoun use (and other issues of that
nature) as the government forcing an ideology upon people. And I certainly
don't think being LGBT holds anyone back from reaching their goals in this
country.

~~~
norea-armozel
"I'm sorry that you're so oppressed. I grew up in a very conservative, rural
state, and I think being LGBT has almost nothing to do with success. Here's a
paper that supports my opinion..."

Your paper doesn't refute the the studies done by others which shows LGBT
people are more likely to be unemployed and physically/sexually assaulted.
These are reported even by the police in major cities in the US as a
significant problem. It gets worse when you factor in race as part of the
background in these studies. So, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take your
one study as the biblical truth on the condition of LGBT people in the United
States (of whom I am a part).

"I respect the fact that you hold an opinion that opposes mine, but you
haven't convinced me that you are right and I am wrong."

Not my job. Open your eyes and look at the world beyond your comfort zone is
all I can tell you.

"But I see mandates on pronoun use (and other issues of that nature) as the
government forcing an ideology upon people."

New York is one state with such a law. No other state with anti-discrimination
protections for LGBT people have such provisions in theirs. So the tone of
such laws goes against your hyperbole. Also, if you think addressing someone
(trans or otherwise) by their preferred pronouns is such a bad thing I think
you got your priorities mixed up. Me being trans myself I think pronouns are
important as much as getting my legal name right, but slip ups can and do
occur (hell, my mom still mixes up my name with that of her grand son's, no
clue why) which is fine. But if you willfully call a trans woman a him then
you're just being a dick. And don't expect said trans woman to be kind to you
in any setting (professional or otherwise).

"And I certainly don't think being LGBT holds anyone back from reaching their
goals in this country."

You have your view versus thousands of LGBT people who aren't having such a
fun time looking for work. Especially transgender people. And the fact you
side with Donald Trump, who is the Republican Party's candidate makes it
worse. Not so much because Trump, but because Trump represents a repugnant
political party that even refuses to acknowledge that sexual orientation does
not need to be cured. That's a bare minimum to get the mind-share of the
majority of LGBT people in the United States. Drop the anti-LGBT reparative
therapy plank in the platform then you'll get many more of us LGBT people
considering your platform. Otherwise, we'll just vote Democrat since they
oppose such therapies in their platform. If that's too hard for your side to
do (BTW, even Log Cabin Republicans aren't support the GOP at this point) then
expect to have bad time with your LGBT siblings. We're not backing down, ever.

------
nikolay
The Liberals are anything but liberal about what others think - they are the
same kind of people like the PETA supporters who would kill a human to save an
animal. I think one day this will be classified as a mental disorder. It's an
internal struggle between their imperfect self and the image they want to
advertise in the society.

As somebody raised during Communism in Bulgaria, I can say all Left are the
same - eventually, they either turn Nazi or Stalinist!

The gay parades are one of those extreme manifestations.

Well, of course, times today are slightly different than during Hitler or
Stalin, but the cruelty against people who think differently is the same order
of magnitude!

The patronizing, the unsubstantiated claim of superiority, the low-class
ridicule of half of America is simply disgusting.

I watched Michael Moore yesterday, and he is a manifestation of that kind.
But, I guess, the culture in the states have totally destroyed by the TV and
movie culture promoting ridicule and pranks! In general, there's no more
respect, there's Narcissism, and all this is not going to end up well!

~~~
norea-armozel
"The Liberals are anything but liberal about what others think - they are the
same kind of people like the PETA supporters who would kill a human to save an
animal."

PETA isn't liberal.

"As somebody raised during Communism in Bulgaria, I can say all Left are the
same - eventually, they either turn Nazi or Stalinist!"

Stalinism isn't socialism either, it's just industrial capitalism with a cult
of personality.

"The gay parades are one of those extreme manifestations."

Clearly you're not gay so you've never had to deal with thugs like skinheads
try to turn your face into a fine red paste on the pavement. Pride parades are
basically a big middle finger to people like those skinheads. LGBT people
engage in them to show that they'll never stop being themselves. If this is
offensive to you then you need to grow a thicker skin.

"Well, of course, times today are slightly different than during Hitler or
Stalin, but the cruelty against people who think differently is the same order
of magnitude!"

Yeah gay pride parades are totally Stalinist rallies considering Stalin put
LGBT people into gulags. /s

"The patronizing, the unsubstantiated claim of superiority, the low-class
ridicule of half of America is simply disgusting."

I think you're confusing brogressives for actual leftists. Brogressives (like
how they're portrayed by South Park) aren't legitimately progressive or left
since to them it's about the performance of appearing left rather than
supporting or engaging in leftist ideas (think dudes who claim to support
georgism but oppose implementing Land Value Tax). So please make the
distinction between the PCbros and actual leftists.

"I watched Michael Moore yesterday, and he is a manifestation of that kind.
But, I guess, the culture in the states have totally destroyed by the TV and
movie culture promoting ridicule and pranks! In general, there's no more
respect, there's Narcissism, and all this is not going to end up well!"

If being smug is your sufficient condition to becoming literally Stalin I'm
not sure your thesis really makes sense. Stalin wasn't just some smug jerk
from Georgia but an actual murderous thug that was paranoid beyond belief. A
liberal being smug isn't an exclusive trait to liberals anymore than it's an
exclusive trait to conservatives (Rush Limbaugh is the essence of conservative
smugness). Smugness is a human trait and to make it into something otherwise
betrays your position. I suggest you think it over and question whether or not
you're just upset that some leftists aren't listening to you online. Because
you're not owed a hearing (nor am I) online/offline just because you have
opinions.

------
rahrahrah
Poor Peter Thiel, he just wanted to get in the game of bribing politicians.

~~~
gragas
You are delusional if you think Thiel is bribing politicians and HRC/DNC is
not. Have you not seen the videos? Top DNC staffers were fired. People are
going to jail.

~~~
rahrahrah
You are delusional if you think I said anything about Clinton.

~~~
gragas
You're right. I was on edge.

