I certainly can do the substitution. But there are multiple options for the substitution:
* Substitute from my own hyper-progressive stance. (Great for feeling good about myself and hating on him.)
* Substitute from his stance. (Great for understanding my opponent.)
* Substitute only a logical equivalence.
I recommend the second, but as a neutral starting point to break out of the mindset of the first, I'd recommend trying the third. As in, put yourself in your formal symbolic logic class, replace "women voting" and "good governance and policy" with X and Y and evaluate it.
Your statement, "X doesn't necessarily result in Y" (which admittedly is not his statement), logically means exactly "It's possible for X to happen and Y to not happen."
So, Thiel believes, to use the logical evaluation of your rephrasing, that it's possible for women to vote and for there still to be bad policy.
Women DID vote, so the only the determining the truth of the logical evaluation of your rephrasing is whether we have (or will have post January 20) bad policy. Right now, Trump's promising some bad policy.
I recommend the second, but as a neutral starting point to break out of the mindset of the first, I'd recommend trying the third. As in, put yourself in your formal symbolic logic class, replace "women voting" and "good governance and policy" with X and Y and evaluate it.
Your statement, "X doesn't necessarily result in Y" (which admittedly is not his statement), logically means exactly "It's possible for X to happen and Y to not happen."
So, Thiel believes, to use the logical evaluation of your rephrasing, that it's possible for women to vote and for there still to be bad policy.
Women DID vote, so the only the determining the truth of the logical evaluation of your rephrasing is whether we have (or will have post January 20) bad policy. Right now, Trump's promising some bad policy.