This is surprising mostly because Thiel is a libertarian. Trump has staked out policy positions that provoke a much stronger central government.<p>To be specific.<p>- Increased federal regulation. Especially especially around restrictions of foreign trade. China/ Korea etc.<p>-Speech restrictions. Trump has advocated new laws against the press and others than disparage him (i.e. those small hands jokes for example or like Bill Maher- called him son of a chimp and was sued- trump lost and wants to change the laws so he'd win)<p>-Intervention in leading American business sourcing and investment decisions. Carrier AC is an example and of course Apple.<p>- Pro Gun control. This is in direct contrast to libertarian views. They dont want any rules from the government on gun control.<p>Now one could argue that Trump has a non interventionist military policy which is a traditional libertarian view. However, Bush ran on that platform in 2000 but becasue he was so inexperienced he ended up started several large wars including Iraq which was a dramatic failure. Trump is less experienced than Bush was so it's possible he is at a high risk of entering new wars as well.<p>There is zero about trump that has anything to do with being a libertarian. That's the puzzling part.
I just want to send a wrecking ball to Washington DC - I'm not really picky which wrecking ball it is (Trump or Sanders).<p>So while I'd prefer Sanders, its clear to me that there are some fundamental problems with our economy - both of the two wrecking ball candidates have touched on something in common, which is average americans have lost in the balance of free trade - and that government is far more accessible to the rich and powerful than it is to the common man.<p>In the end, we lived thru 8 years of GWB - and very frankly, I have enough faith in our system of government to feel that its self regulating that we could put pretty much anyone in the office of president and they'd not be able to fuck it up too much.<p>Yes, I expect to get downvoted for tacit support of Trump.
Am I missing something here? Being a pledged party delegate is very different from being a true supporter of a candidate. It just means that you intend to cast your delegate vote for a particular candidate. There's essentially no one but Trump left in the Republican Primary, so is it really surprising that Peter Thiel, a Republican, would pledge for him?
Is Thiel a neoreactionary?<p>Trump is actually a great candidate for the neoreactionaries: an apolitical strongman with barely veiled ambitions for unchallenged sovereignty. I'm surprised Mencius Moldbug isn't on the delegate slate as well.<p>FWIW, I've had some success persuading conventional Republicans to write in Hillary Clinton as a protest candidate in the upcoming California primary.
Peter Thiel:<p>"Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron."<p><a href="http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian" rel="nofollow">http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education...</a><p>Fits right in with Trump.<p>How's the seasteading going btw?
Could we close and merge the other submissions on this:<p><a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?query=thiel&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?query=thiel&sort=byDate&prefix&page=...</a><p>Note: this is one of the few that doesn't have "Thiel" in the title.
Does Thiel <i>support</i> Trump or is he just legally or contractually bound to cast a vote for him because he's a Republican party delegate? I smell click bait.<p>Of course the real question is why Thiel would be a Republican delegate at all. Does he not have better things to do than carry water for a bunch of dimwits and apparatchiks?