[adam419]

I remember as far back as 2012 seeing Gawker articles and truly feeling ashamed for humanity. You had these pompous writers completely mocking and attempting to knock down elon musk as some insane fool for his recent release of the hyperloop plans, etc.

So here's a guy actually moving our society forward in transportation and the environment, and these smug writers try to cast him as a clown.

Does anyone actually defend on substance any of the activities Gawker was engaging in? These people pushed wrong narratives and destroyed lives over reasons that were most often proven false and always self serving to the interests of gawker.

I think peter is a smart guy, but I really feel a sense of gratitude to him for ridding the world of that awful organization.

Everyone sensationalistically shouts he's an evil billionaire damaging free speech and journalism, but gawker was engaged in voyeurism and bullying. And a court of law agreed with it. We make exceptions to pure free speech all the time, such as not being allowed to shout fire in a movie theater, etc.

I don't care to comment about his support of trump, but I also find it curious most of his vocal critics are themselves journalists, and are in my opinion resentful of the fact he set a precedent that the power "journalists" have is also something that can be held accountable.

[Nokinside]

>"These people pushed wrong narratives and destroyed lives over reasons that were most often proven false and always self serving to the interests of ...."

Assuming our opinion is like above, but against Trump, do we have justification to attack Trump and Thiel based on their political opinion?

[astrodust]

It can be your "political opinion" that the government should be small, taxes kept low, and regulation to a minimum.

When you start bragging about sexually assaulting women, advocating violence against your opponents, and feeding the flames of racial tension you've moved well beyond mere opinion.

It's bewildering that Thiel would support such a character now given how Thiel won't "suffer" from Trump not being in the White House.

It was under Bill Clinton that this entire tech party got started: The commercialization of the Internet. Laws favorable to the start-up investment scene. Freeing up investment banks to allocate capital more freely.

I just don't get Thiel's motivation here. You don't want a total lunatic in power, you want someone you can talk to and persuade.

[dreta]

The only people who keep fuelling racial tensions are Democrats, notably Obama and Clinton, constantly telling black people they’re oppressed and that the police is racist. Trump had to cancel a rally in Chicago after democrats started rioting, he’s not the one instigating the violence, but whenever it breaks out, it’s always described as a “fight breaking out”, and never as democrats assaulting Trump supporters, which is what it is.

Trump doesn’t bring race to anything. He’s just called “racist” by people who don’t understand the term “illegal alien”, or that Islam is not a race.

Trump said these terrible things a decade ago. A decade ago Clinton and Obama were strongly, and publicly, against gay marriage. A decade ago Clinton praised sen. Robert Byrd as her “mentor”, a former KKK member, and noted racist. Go back further, and you have tapes of her laughing at the victims of her husband and destroying their lives. The thing with Hillary though, is that you don’t have to go that far with her, if you stop ignoring the fact she should be in jail right now, and not running for office.

[astrodust]

I'm sorry, which candidate was endorsed by the KKK and other white power groups?

I have no idea where you get your news from but the wild assumptions you're making are absurd.

[dreta]

Who cares who endorses which candidate, that’s out of their control. Hillary was endorsed by the Californian leader of the KKK, if you care, i don’t. I’m not making any assumptions. Hillary’s on tape calling Byrd her “friend and mentor” after his death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryweuBVJMEA&ab_channel=U.S.D...

[CalChris]

It's highly improbable that a Ku Klux Klan leader endorsed Hillary Clinton for president and/or donated $20,000 to her campaign.

http://www.snopes.com/kkk-endorses-hillary-clinton/

[astrodust]

It's hardly cut and dry: http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/

You really need to stop listening to people like Alex Jones.

[adam419]

Might want to consider the wikileaks revelation of clinton campaign coordinating and paying protesters to start violence at his rallys.

Trump is an exceptionally flawed candidate, but I encourage everyone to consider that perhaps their perception of him is to some debatable degree (a big degree in my opinion) due to people out there trying very hard and spending a lot of money to portay him as "literally hitler"