> of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator).
This is precisely where your whole argument fell apart. If money is speech (and SCOTUS tells us it is) and Thiel donates over $1 million to Trump's campaign, then he effectively is saying what Trump is saying.
Money talks. In our society, it's almost always even louder than the calm reasoning of a rationalist.
I think that all you can assume with donations is that the statement is "I think that this is the best candidate" instead of "I endorse everything that this person says". I would then think that it is reasonable to not hold a donor responsible for everything that the person they donated to says
That's just as delusional as the people who gush over Hillary for her social justice stances, but get very angry when you bring up her hawkishness. That's not how it works. You vote for / donate to the entire politician. You can't elect half a President.
True, but presidents (on average) get a remarkable percentage of their policies passed in some form. Maybe you don't support 90% of what Donald or Hillary say, but you have to be careful: it's almost guaranteed that at least something of that 90% is going to happen.
Also, there are varying degrees of agree-ability. I do not agree with many of Hillary's policies, but there aren't any that I would take a firm stance against. Most of Donald's policies are different: I don't agree with them, and I believe it'd be awful if they were to actually happen.
But for these people that are still supporting Trump, they consider that avoiding 90% of Hillary's platform worth the cost of Trump. Bear in mind, when Nate Silver pointed out that Trump would win if only men could vote, women (a small number, mind you) were tweeting they'd gladly give up their right to vote if it got Trump elected.
You have to understand that that is how some people feel about Hillary. That losing their own vote forever, for their entire gender, would be worth it to them to keep her out of office.
> But for these people that are still supporting Trump, they consider that avoiding 90% of Hillary's platform worth the cost of Trump.
I think the problem is that's not true. From what I've read, people don't support a candidate because they agree or disagree with the opposition on real-terms. They support because of "fake terms."
I consider these fake terms to be one I hear a lot from Trump supporters: "Hillary Clinton wants to take our guns away."
> women (a small number, mind you) were tweeting they'd gladly give up their right to vote if it got Trump elected.
There are plenty of women that think women shouldn't vote, regardless of Trump! There are men who think men shouldn't vote, etc.. etc.. fortunately, the internet gives them a platform: unfortunately, sometimes these groups aren't keen on reason.
And it remains your decision how much of your own personal politics you are willing to sacrifice in exchange for a candidate more likely to win.
For a lot of people, this year, you are basically on a scale from yourself with no chance to the major nominees with at least 99.9% of the chance and almost nothing you agree with.
Ordinarily, I might be more inclined to agree with you, but (as even sama seems to recognize) this is far from an ordinary 'vote my issues' kind of election. This is a more holistic matter of core principles.
No he isn't. Since Trump has donated to the Clinton Foundation (edit: and Hillary's senate and presidential campaigns), does that mean that he is effectively saying everything that Hillary is saying? Does buying an album mean I agree with every lyric on it? If I donate to someone who then incites violence, can I be prosecuted?
Also, the Supreme Court does not believe money is speech. If they did, campaign contribution limits would be obviously unconstitutional.
1. Donating to the Clinton Foundation is not the same as donating to the Clinton campaign.
2. Buying an album is not the same as donating money to a campaign or voting, both of which can meaningfully affect a large number of other people, unlike buying an album.
3. If you knowingly fund criminal operations without actually committing said crimes yourself you can definitely be held accountable for it by the law.
4. The US Supreme Court did rule that donating money is a form of free speech in Buckley v. Valeo, but this doesn't imply that free speech is limitless. As with other forms of speech, Congress has the power to place reasonable limits on it.
1. He has donated to her campaigns as well, several times.
2. If money that supports speech is equivalent to making that speech, isn't this just a matter of degree?
3. I understand. Doesn't my specific example seem absurd, though?
4. But there are many more limitations on money than there are on speech. There is no limit on speech in support of a campaign. There is a limit on money in support of a campaign. Is that not enough evidence that money and speech are not equivalent, at least legally?
Haven't looked deep into the thought behind the "money is speech" situation, but it seems extreme to say that giving money is the same as talking.
Let's assume Alice supports a candidate not because of their general positions but because of a certain niche position that person A thinks is really important.
If you hate a certain position the candidate believes but person A might feel ambivalent about, is it fair to redirect that anger to Alice?
The major difference I see between the candidate and Alice is simply that if another candidate that came along without the position you may hate but still having the niche belief, they may switch quite quickly.
Candidates A and B are for or against (noted as O and X respectively) the following:
Issue: A B C D E F G
A: O O O X X X O
B: O O X X O O X
Noting that they both agree on three issues, disagree on three issues. I have to weight each of those issues to determine which one I am actually for. While I disagree with Thiel's conclusion this year, I have to presume he's done the same sort of analysis (he's not an idiot, he's well educated and successful so he's done something right along the way). His scales have apparently tipped in strong favor of Trump (especially for him to double down with his donation), but that doesn't mean he specifically supports the more abhorrent parts of Trump's character or campaign.
> I have to presume he's done the same sort of analysis (he's not an idiot, he's well educated and successful so he's done something right along the way)
Being well educated and successful doesn't mean he acts rationally at all time. Some persons get extremely passionate and dogmatic when it comes to politics. I'm just speculating but maybe Trump's personality and style appeals to him in an irresistible way.
>then he effectively is saying what Trump is saying.
This is a very dangerous way of viewing politics, and exactly the kind of black-and-white thinking we're trying to get away from. Just because you donate to someone, just because you vote for them, just because you campaign for them does not mean you agree 100% with everything they say. If 100% agreement were a prerequisite for voting for someone, nobody would ever vote. There has never been a candidate that has held all of my views, and there never will be, because my views are a pretty peculiar mix based on my experiences and exposure to information.
> If money is speech [...] and [someone donates money to a] campaign, then [they effectively are] saying what [the candidate] is saying.
No, they're just saying they support that candidate. Maybe they support every position they hold, but that's not a corollary. Maybe they just really dislike the alternative candidates, and maybe they made this decision solely based on comparing two candidates on a single issue.
This rant isn't directed at you (or the article for that matter), but I have a disdain for people who decry single-issue voters. For whatever reason, being a single-issue voter is seen as this taboo that any educated and cultured individual ought to stay away from. I think that's bullshit, especially in a political realm as polarized as ours. In my eyes, there's nothing "wrong" with being a single issue voter. For any given individual, certain topics in politics affect them disproportionately. The idea that people shouldn't account for that when making their decision comes entirely from an ego-driven world of journalists, politicians, and academics who need to convince themselves that they consider politics from a hilltop, above and beyond the mere peasants who only care about themselves and their personal life.
And to bring this back to the topic at hand, if you agree with what I'm saying about single-issue voting, I think it's inconsistent to think that it reflects personally on someone to support Trump.
If you are a single issue voter that is:
* against foreign intervention
* concerned about the federal budget
* against the ACA
* against common core and the department of education
* for allowing marijuana legalization by individual states
* etc. etc. etc.
You might find yourself supporting Trump. And you still might not like what he says sometimes. And you might not be a horrible person to your core.
Endorsing Trump or Clinton isn't the same as saying you agree with everything they stand for. It is simply saying that you believe they are a better candidate for the position than the opposition, and unfortunately I feel like this election has turned into a "lesser of two evils" for many people I talk with. Nobody fully endorses either candidate's beliefs or ideals, but they definitely know which one they like the least for the job.
In that regard, donating really isn't saying much. It is simply saying "I think Trump will do a better job as president than Clinton."
That all said, I have no idea what Theil's political beliefs are so he might really agree with everything Trump says, but you can't infer that off of a donation to his campaign.
What? Why is money speech? What makes donation different from voting pragmatically? (eg. "I'll put up with an offensive loudmouth for President if it means we get to avoid destroying another Middle Eastern civilization and potentially starting WW3")
A case where it was divided along partisan lines 5 to 4 on the SCOTUS. One of the 5s seat is now vacant and the next president will appoint a replacement.
This is the primary reason I am so frustrated with friends of mine who are content to see Hillary and Trump as 'the same'. One of these two people will tilt the court away from the majority that decided on Citizens United. The other will tilt it further in favor of the side that decided on Citizens United.
Even if HRC was ideologically opposed to my own views I would vote for her since 4 or 8 years of HRC trumps (pardon the pun) the 40 years of SCOTUS seating the next president will set.
Remember, that case was about the U.S. government trying to prevent a group of people from showing a film critical of a political candidate. Do you really think that isn't speech?
"The majority, in a per curiam opinion, contended that expenditure limits contravened the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because spending money, in its view, was the same as written or verbal expression."
It's not an all or nothing, black and white thing though.
It's possible for someone to agree with some things a candidate says, and disagree with other things. If I agree with more things Trump says than things Clinton says (or does, or believes, etc...) then it makes sense to support that candidate. So money is not speech. Even votes are not speech.
> then he effectively is saying what Trump is saying
Disagree.
Thiel is making an investment. He can likely separate his emotions from his actions. I imagine Thiel doesn't agree with a lot of what Pence says about homosexuals, but that certainly didn't stop him from making the investment.
The only way that this could be anything less than a full support of the Trump platform, would be if Thiel had specifically rejected large chunks of the platform are bad, and he's not supporting them, but there's some things there in particular that he finds so important that they override all the bad stuff. In other words, the "lesser of two evils" endorsement, such as some Republicans have made for Clinton this year.
Thiel didn't do that. In his speech, the only reference to that was decrying the "fake culture wars".
Ergo, he fully supports not just Trump, but the entirety of the Trump platform.
You are misreading that sentence. You're talking about money talking symbolically. From context, Sam obviously means if Peter starts saying specific things that Trump has said.
I agree that this is not a good thing. No one should be fired for having controversial opinions or even being accused of a crime. I believe that "morality clause"-style firings should only occur when a) the employer is among the aggrieved parties (e.g., the employer accuses the employee of theft or other unlawful conduct); or b) the employee is convicted in a criminal court.
I've had way too much of people getting fired for petty personal disagreements or baseless accusations.
"If money is speech (and SCOTUS tells us it is) and Thiel donates over $1 million to Trump's campaign, then he effectively is saying what Trump is saying."
And wasn't this the argument made by those who supported the ouster of Brendan Eich from Mozilla?
I made it then, and I'm making it now. One of the best ways we can fix campaign finance is by holding campaign financiers responsible for what they're funding.
Not really, the minority is anybody who's ever had the wrong opinion on anything that sufficiently socially powerful people think is worth burning the heretics over. If you really need to get at somebody, it may in fact be sufficient to just make something up:
> Not really, the minority is anybody who's ever had the wrong opinion on anything that sufficiently socially powerful people think is worth burning the heretics over.
How is being uninvited as a keynote speaker being burned at the stake? Or even remotely comparable to the policies that Donald Trump has advocated (killing the families of suspected terrorists, jailing political opponents) or bragging about sexual assault, which is illegal?
I can see why folks had an issue with Eich being forced out of Mozilla, but the world isn't black and white when it comes to "free speech". Allowing free speech doesn't mean that you should be shielded from the consequences from the world at large.
"Holding people responsible" means punishing, in one way or another. Not doing business with them, trying to get them tossed out of a group, get them fired, shamed, etc. And who is going to do this to whom? Those with the popular opinion would be doing it to those with the unpopular opinion.
- Voters holding candidates responsible for where their support comes from, and whether that will influence their actions in office.
- Consumers / collaborators / whatnot holding financiers responsible for what they are funding.
I, as a voter, do choose to take into account who is funding a candidate's campaign.
I, as a consumer / potential employee / human, take into account the speech funded by someone I'm intending to conduct a transaction with / form a friendship with, as evidence of their character.
If you are claiming that calling a non-trivial proportion of Trump's supporters deplorable requires an apology, you disagree with me about what is deplorable.
The fact that a candidate for President of the United States -- whichever party they represent -- would decide to dismiss a sizeable portion of the country as contemptible or wretched seems to be the issue.
Mitt Romney dismissed 47% of the voting public in 2012 and was roundly criticized for dismissing the people he supposedly wanted to lead.
If Clinton had said 46%, would that have made it ok?
If a sizeable portion of the country is contemptible or wretched, why on earth would she not say it?
It's not dismissing them, it's saying they hold contemptible views. Just as, at one point in time, I'd imagine 50% of the population were in favour of slavery.
It's not a good political move, but it's telling the truth.
It's not about the number, but rather about the accuracy of the statement.
I don't have any problem with what Clinton said. Based on the numerous polls, she is absolutely correct. It may not be a politically prudent thing to say, but that's not an ethical matter.
Sure. There are individuals in any large group that stray in philosophy and behavior from what the majority consider rational or acceptable, and that includes Clinton, Johnson and Stein supporters.
So what is the acceptable number? "Almost half"?
And what does that say about the rest of the group? Are they too to be damned by association, for standing too close to the "real deplorables"?
This is precisely where your whole argument fell apart. If money is speech (and SCOTUS tells us it is) and Thiel donates over $1 million to Trump's campaign, then he effectively is saying what Trump is saying.
Money talks. In our society, it's almost always even louder than the calm reasoning of a rationalist.