This is a tricky situation. While many universally agree Trump is dangerous in his opinions and viewpoints on many issues, you can't just severe ties with an investor because of their political affiliation. Thiel might be supporting a candidate with racist and bigotry views, but this is his choice. When it comes to business, you should never make things personal and I think worrying about someone's political affiliation is definitely making it personal.

Might not be the most popular opinion, but I think Sam made the right call here.

By Altman's own argument, there's a line Thiel could cross that would make YC sever ties with him. All it would take is for Thiel to repeat some of the things Trump said.

So having a YC partner fund hate speech is okay, as long as it's by proxy. This is a baffling stance.

There is a difference between having an opinion or stance on something and repeating racist, ignorant and bigotry statements from a candidate. As far as I know, Thiel has done nothing but make a donation, he isn't forcing his views on anyone at YC nor publicly parroting/endorsing things Trump is saying.

In this instance Thiel has done nothing more than make a donation to a political candidate many don't like.

Wouldn't this sort of behavior play into Trump's view of 'the system' being rigged against him? Shouldn't individuals have a right to have terrible opinions?

In this thread and others I've seen this:

Shouldn't individuals have a right to have terrible opinions?

Of course they do. But a surprising number of “free speech” and “free market” people don’t seem to understand how either works.

Individuals have a right to support white nationalists.

Individuals also have a right not to do business with those who support white nationalists.

Individuals also have the right to organize protests against those who support white nationalists.

Let's be clear: defending the right to support a white nationalist while denouncing the right to protest against one isn’t courage, it’s sophistry.

Conservatives have a right to their own set of values, like anti-abortion, faith-based education issues, smaller government, reduced taxes, etc., and they have a right to back whatever candidate aligns with their values. I'm a liberal but it is amazing to me to read these types of articles, from other liberals with zero tolerance for the alternative viewpoint. There should not even be a decision to be made here. It takes all kinds of people or else it would not be America. It is not acceptable to persecute people based on their political choices.

Political debate in the US has traditionally taken place in a framework of shared values. Some of these are: you accept electoral defeat, you nominate people with a basic minimum of human decency, and overt bigotry is not acceptable.

Within that framework, people have sharp disagreements over issues, some of them life-or-death (like abortion). But the framework is something that was sacrosanct, until this election.

The problem many people, including conservatives, have with Trump is that he breaks basic norms around how our democracy should work, and represents a threat to it. That's why Thiel's vocal support for his candidacy is so troubling. It's not just a case of someone whose politics I disagree with, it's someone financing the destruction of the whole apparatus those politics take place within.

and overt bigotry is not acceptable.

I'm scared to ask- is this really true?

I'd personally like to think we've gotten better as a society over the years.

Clumsy on my part- I was asking historically.

There's also the entire argument that Thiel doesn't really support Donald Trump, and that this donation is more of a strategic move that is coherent with increasing Ted Cruz's chances of election in 2020. Cruz got as close to a public denouncement of Trump as possible, and he will probably need the support of many of his voters (who knows if they'll even remember, doubt it) to be able to secure a victory. Thiel could perhaps be the trump card necessary as support, as he double counts as both a gay man and someone who remained "loyal" to Trump. I think that Thiel's opinions on how the world should look are more in line with Cruz's, and he himself has called Cruz "very smart". I don't know a lot about politics or Peter Thiel, but to think that a former chess champion and fairly renowned silicon Valley figurehead legitimately supports Trump is a little outlandish. The odds of there being an ulterior motive are far greater than the opposite. Not to mention that he probably saw all the negative PR coming, as well as the resulting dissociations. He probably believes it was all worth it.

Please, do the right thing, and don't take it down again. https://www.reddit.com/r/startups/comments/582t9v/y_combinat...

Taking down or not is up to the site operator. HN is a privately run site. The operators can decide which content they want or don't to see on their site.

So there's no "right thing" here, really.

Yes it is but there is some irony that HN are ok to defend Theil based on freedom of speech but they're are not extending the same courtesy to Marco for criticizing them about it. Seems HN maybe as thin skinned as Trump.

This still shouldn't be on HN. I'm not from the US and I am totally fed up with both pro and anti Trump/Clinton propaganda that spews out to cover all of the world, and I don't want to see it here, at least particularly when it's just "stories about politics, or crime, or sports" and particularly not "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon." as the HN guidelines put it.

I'd rather fight for Thiel's right to say and work for his opinion.

I'm no Trumpist and no fan of Thiel, but I believe anyone can place their vote where-ever they want.

I may not agree with him but I would fight to the end for his right to vote for Trump if he wants.

To be fair, OP doesn't take issue with who Thiel is voting for.

Did we read the same post?

Thiel, a non-employee (a “part-time partner”), is directly supporting Donald Trump at a massive scale — over a million dollars! — after we’ve learned even more of Trump’s horrendous statements, positions, and past actions than we could’ve ever imagined.

I'm not sure but there is no mention of voting anywhere in the article.

Fine, swap "vote" for "support". Allowing people to vote for candidates but not support them is just mincing words.

Nobody has a problem with whomever Thiel is voting for or wants to restrict his ability to vote in anyway.

This isn't issue and you pretending to be merely derails the discussion.

Just one quick comment, because these discussions always go there: This is not about Hillary. Whatever the family Clinton did or not did, it doesn't matter. This is about someone who supports Donald Trump in a significant way, and the person Donald Trump and his potential negative impact on our society.

I wish that more smart people would not demonize either party and instead analyze and dissect each platform and weigh the potential benefits and consequences of them.

It is much more convincing to read actual facts about the platforms, and it's a lot more constructive.

With the brain power here, we might even be able to make constructive suggestions and possibly even influence either party's policies so that regardless of the outcome it works in everyone's favor.

If we can point out that some component of Hillary's plan or Trump's plan will surely lead to disaster in some way, that itself may have the political power to influence revision in a positive way, especially right now since both candidates are searching for weaknesses in each other's campaigns.

This is one of the most intelligent communities in the world, so let's be constructive.

The problem is that Trump doesn't offer much in policy, even when it comes to policy he actually talks about and this doesn't just affect the things he wants to keep secret from ISIS. He also contradicts himself quite a lot and when he touches upon policy in his talking points it's often times questionable whether he's even aware of the actual policies he's referring to and to what degree.

There is just no basis for an actual discussion or comparison on policy details.

Why do people need to drag their personal opinions into business matters?

Demanding someone gets fire/removed just because they have a different political opinion than you is ridiculous.

Political "opinion" in this case isn't a bubblegum flavor preference.

The presidency of the U.S. isn't a personal matter.

As a matter of fact, it is ;) A system where everyone can personally choose their leaders without external pressure or control is called a democracy.

This is really strange attribute of democracy, that if majority decides (informed or by uninformed that decision be), one can flip from democracy to (let's say) autocracy, but then you dont get to vote in next election if you change your mind, because there will be none.

I am not sure if it is ridiculous. It depends. It's about a line that everyone has to draw and to set. And this also what Marco is trying to mention in his post I guess.

Let's take a more extreme example from history, just for pointing out that there is a line: I hope we could agree that supporting the NSDAP is as far over such a line as imaginable.

Not comparing anyone in this context with the NSDAP, just pointing out that there is such a line, and hiding behind "political free opinion" doesn't help to avoid hard decisions.

It's good that you aren't comparing this current context with our modern view on the NSDAP.

Mainly because pressuring others into supporting a certain candidate through non-political means really is ridiculous and a deeply concerning attitude in democratic societies.

Wait a second, maybe I can't follow you here. Are you saying that there should be no consequences for anyone no matter who someone is political supporting, because it is in political context?

If so, two questions: - What if someone is supporting someone in none political context (which is hard, cause kind of nearly everything could be defined as such), does then someone have to stand for her/his public behaviour and face disagreement or consequences? - What if someone supports politically the KKK, the IS or any other organisation or party, that you might not agree with?

How about a much more important thing in our constitution: Free speech. Does free speech mean I can say and publicly announce anything, without having to face consequences?

From these discussions, are we to take it that YC will not invest in founders who support Trump?

HN admins - if you're going to shut this one down as well, could I appeal to you to at least give a reasoning why? Killing posts like these without for example dang providing at least a quick reasoning why leaves a bad taste in my mouth...

People flag it. I just did. Not sure whether the HN admins have anything to do with it.

Flagged is one thing, a previous discussion was additionally set as "dead". As far as I know that can only be done by an admin, no? If it was all an automatic thing done by the system, then I have no issue with it.

BTW, it looks like they turned off the flagged state of this post and are giving the discussion a chance. Well done. Let's hope the comments here don't devolve into silly political bashing...

Enough flags turn it dead. Mods not required.

Not an admin, just a user, but read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.

There's nothing very interesting in vilifying Thiel.

On the contrary, the fact that we had, and continue to have numerous threads, and thousands of comments means it is very interesting to the community.

The fact that it keeps getting flagged to death shows something too.

This is a disgrace to punish someone just because they have different view. Kudos to Y Cominator to not cave in. Peter Thiel is free to support and donate to whoever candidate he feels strong about. If you don't like it, donate to the other candidate. Dragging it into business and people life is so Mccarthyism.

Should all views be accepted as equally valid?

Isn't the right to hold your own judgement the heart of freedom? And what is that judgement if it cannot be expressed? If it cannot have consequences?

Sure, we must protect the expression and dissemination of thoughts and views as key to democracy but when it comes to implementation of those expressions and thoughts we also have a duty under democracy to vigorously push our own judgements.

Should all views be accepted as equally valid?

Whether a view is valid or not is irrelevant. Who's the judge for validity anyway? And you don't have to accept certain views you don't like. The problem is when you want to suppress views you don't like, to the extent of oppression.

Who's the judge for validity anyway?

The individual and, in a democracy, individuals in aggregate, the majority with specific exceptions, of course, that protect a person's Right of expression.

To remove from people the right to judge for themselves is the ultimate assault on freedom and liberty.

when you want to suppress views you don't like, to the extent of oppression.

There are a lot of slippery words in that sentence. What is suppression? Is speaking out against a view vigorously, suppression? Is working to prevent a view from becoming policy suppression? Is judging a person's character for holding a certain view suppression? Is acting against the implementation of one's views and agenda if one does not agree with it suppression? Is judging an individual or a group by the company they keep suppression? No. To all of the above, no.

Not all views have equal merit and deserve equal treatment.

Working against an odious agenda and to counter undesirable views (within the law) is not oppression, it is an obligation and a duty in a democratic society.

To remove from people the right to judge for themselves is the ultimate assault on freedom and liberty.

I think we are in agreement here.

Should all views be accepted as equally valid?

Not all views have equal merit and deserve equal treatment.

These are just a pretext to suppress views that are deemed invalid, odious, and undesirable. And conveniently any "invalid" view happens to be the ones you don't like.

The hallmark of a democratic society is to ensure opposing views can be spoken without fear of repercussion.

However, the right to express yourself doesn't mean the right to harass and bully the people expressing the opposing views.

Oppression happens when you bully people just because their view. Oppression happens when you sabotage their work/job/career/business just because their view. Oppression happens when you harass their friends/family/relationship just because their view.

If you want to advocate your view and policy, state exactly how great they are and what benefits they bring. If you want to express how terrible the opposing view, state exactly how bad they are. Don't bully the people. Express your opposition to their VIEW, not the individual.

Oppression happens when you sabotage their work/job/career/business just because their view.

I would agree with you except for one thing: money is political power under our current system. If someone is allowed to use their market power to influence our democracy, it is perfectly valid to use market power to oppose that influence. It is a double edged sword.

That's why we have election rules attempting to restrict money influence in the system for BOTH sides, or at least to make it a level playing field.

Targeting people's personal money just because their view is an oppression. It is an easy slippery slope to go down. Income/money/work enable them to express their view. What's next? Their home certainly enable them to express their view. How about their food?

If you want to take money out of politics, work on campaign finance reform. And enforce existing laws to stamp out any violation.

I am not sure why endorsement of a political candidate is sometimes equated with 100% parity on every single belief of that particular candidate.

It is entirely possibly that some people support Trump because of his crass and divisive rhetoric, and it's also entirely possible that some people support Trump because of his stance on trade. Is it really anyone's place to demand that another voter change the list of priorities that determine their choice of candidate? Does that not fundamentally alter the intended functioning of the way voting in a democracy ought to work?

I am all for constructive debate on why the policies and character of one candidate makes them more suitable for holding a particular government post, but to suggest that one ought to resort to intimidation, ostracism, marginalizing and other such methods because of an individual's personal choice to prioritize a candidate's agreeable stance on one issue, over a disagreeable stance of another, seems very dangerous to me.

During his campaign, President Obama famously claimed that he felt marriage was a union that ought to be between a man and a woman. Most would consider this to be a highly regressive view, yet voted for him because he was their preferred choice on a whole lot of issues. Campaign officials like David Axelrod later revealed that he took this position publicly for political expediency. Regardless of whether this is true, if one were to suggest marginalizing Obama voters in the way that is being suggested here, I am confident that there would be very little semblance of a community left.

Some particular beliefs are critical. If a candidate is perfect and a genius, but for example is against (for example) women voting, this is critical for endorsement, even though he may be perfect in every other sense.

Likewise, if your friend is from a different party than you, you may still be friends, but if he is a member of the KKK I guess that draws the line. Tolerance is not supposed to be infinite.

What people are finding out is that the line is different for everyone. And of course, its the election for President. Everything gets blown out of proportion.

Why? Unless the candidate will have the power to prevent women from voting he can hold any beliefs he wants in general.

There is a good reason why we have separation of power and why we have a complex political system in which even the president needs political capital to do things.

That said i think it's highly unlikely that there will be such hypothetical candidate that i can agree with on 99% 90% or even 50% of the issues and they'll be say a member of the KKK.

Unless the candidate will have the power to prevent women from voting he can hold any beliefs he wants in general.

We don't know what powers the Executive Branch has now or will have. It evolves. FDR drastically expanded the power of the President, and he almost took over the Judicial Branch by appointing a bunch of new Supreme Court justices.

The next POTUS will appoint at least one Supreme Court justice and possibly more, which would give him/her enormous power over many decades of US law.

I am not sure why endorsement of a political candidate is sometimes equated with 100% parity on every single belief of that particular candidate.

Endorsement is one thing. Donating a massive amount of money is something entirely different. Not many people are willing to part with $1.25M for someone they don't fanatically support.

And either way, that's not the point. The point is that, while most candidates have deep flaws, Trump has flaws that cannot be overlooked or explained away by political differences.

These include: racism (for which he has lost lawsuits), advocating sexual assault, and suggesting that Hillary Clinton be assassinated.

$1.25M is less for Thiel than $100 is for most people. The absolute amount is meaningless, you have to normalize by wealth here.

The absolute amount is not meaningless because it has an effect in the real world.

It buys a certain amount of airtime, organizers' time, etc. Thiel said, "I'm not going to do X numbers of hours of work for you, but I'm going to donate them to your campaign."

That number of hours is staggeringly high, by the way: equivalent to 30+ years of full-time work by unskilled laborers.

You mean why are we giving a hard time to all those people who join the KKK just because they look good in white?

But seriously, I don't think the demand to "sever ties" with Thiel is the right (it does have the slight scent of a purge), or the smart one to make (it plays too much into the hands of those who are glad to jump on the "silencing opposing views" bandwagon). In fact, it pretty much ensures that the debate be diverted to that, especially when many in the crowd are, for one reason or another, fixated on their ideas of free speech. It isn't a hypothesis, either, but precisely what happened time and again in the relevant "community". But YC is influential in SV, where various racist and misogynistic ideas, for one reason or another, take hold on some from time to time, and yet YC has often stayed silent (or faint) on such issues, even when they claim to disagree with them, while being quite vocal about political issues like SOPA and visas that affect the powerful SV players.

it plays too much into the hands of those who are glad to jump on the "silencing opposing views" bandwagon

Why frame it like this? It is "silencing opposing views", whether a bandwagon exists or not, so is bad in itself. You seem to imply the only problem is that people care about the issue - that's a good thing!

in SV, where various racist and misogynistic ideas

SV is a liberal and leftist hotspot, so those ideas also take hold. Are you pondering why any none-liberal ideas sometimes take hold there? Maybe there a degree of subjectivity in it?

yet YC has often stayed silent (or faint) on such issues

Possibly for good reason. There is a lot of animosity towards the tech crowd there, and beating them up about diversity in tech is a common pastime.

Remember the PG misquoting? He should have just refused to talk about the subject.

It is "silencing opposing views"

Well, I'm not 100% sure that telling your billionaire buddy that since he's become a politician in a movement that you view as dangerous to your country and its people perhaps you shouldn't do business together for a while, qualifies as silencing his views. Still, I don't think it was right to demand this of YC.

Are you pondering why any non-liberal ideas sometimes take hold there?

I'm not wondering why supremacist views sometimes takes hold anywhere, I'm just saying that perhaps people of influence who oppose those views may want to speak up a bit more vocally. Maybe it's even their duty.

Possibly for good reason. There is a lot of animosity towards the tech crowd there

So Marie Antoinette's mistake wasn't not working in the interest of her people but in reminding them that they're hungry?

He hasn't "become a politician", it isn't proposed "for a while".

I'm not wondering why supremacist views sometimes takes hold

We were talking about "various racist and misogynistic ideas", not "supremacist views". Are you talking about any view you see as subjectively racist/misogynist, or only specific ones?

Marie Antoinette's mistake wasn't not working in the interest of her people

Antoinette's famous comment was glib and not intended to help, versus PGs sincere willingness to discuss sex issues; Also, she was a monarch is a brutal reign, if you want to compare than to the SV tech industry, go ahead.

We were talking about "various racist and misogynistic ideas", not "supremacist views". Are you talking about any view you see as subjectively racist/misogynist, or only specific ones?

There is not much room for subjectivity when extreme views are concerned, certainly no more than in any other moral question. Either you think an equal power distribution among the races and the sexes is a desirable, high-priority goal or you don't. There's room for subjectivity in the means of achieving that goal and in its exact priority, but not in recognizing it as one. In any event, Trump's movement is certainly much more supremacist than any other mainstream and establishment conservative movement in recent history, and leaders at YC have said they regard it as abhorrent.

Also, she was a monarch

Here we come to the question of whether government is the only external power affecting people's lives, or that there are a multitude of powers. It has been firmly established that the latter view is the correct one. The moral responsibility of an unelected and unconstitutional government to its subjects stems from the fact it has power over them (as it is not formally obligated to do a specific job); every other power has similar responsibility, from the same moral argument, to a degree commensurate with its influence.

Peter Thiel is doing just fine. If Y Combinator walked away from him, he would not be hurt or marginalized or ostracized in the least. This is not about persecuting people who vote for Trump.

But to support Trump with an enormous sum of money _after_ Trump has revealed himself to be willing to resort to borderline anti-Semitic slurs, to welcome the support of the white supremacy movement, to call for locking up his political opponent, to threaten the free press, to call for an end to Bill of Rights protections for accused criminals, to pre-emptively claim that the election is rigged, that voting fraud is rampant and to encourage his supporters to intimidate voters, to promise to ban an entire religion, and to brag about sexual assault in professional situations is to make a statement that these are the things Thiel is okay with advocating. Whatever other positions Trump might have that Thiel supports, these things are part of the package. Trump is not just a normal candidate. He's a true threat to our democracy.

He's a true threat to our democracy.

The responses he provokes are also a threat to democracy.

It's important not to become that which you oppose by calling for opponents to be punished in some way (e.g. be locked up, or lose their job) because of their beliefs.

" is to make a statement that these are the things Thiel is okay with advocating."

Clinton supporters are never held to this standard.

No one calls on Clinton supporters to publicly disavow her statement about the "basket of deplorables". Clinton also shipped classified information to her basement server and destroyed thousands of records when under subpoena. No one claims that Clinton supporters are supporting this behavior. Indeed, it seems just fine for Clinton voters to support her despite her activities which were, at best, "extremely reckless." Clinton supporters can say that, despite her flaws, they will vote for her.

But for some reason, any Trump voter automatically supports every bad thing he ever did.

So Trump has a lot of problems, but it looks like he is not corrupt. Hillary, on the other hand, is fully with corruption. I really don't like/agree with YC priorities (I'm not an American, which is even more disturbing to see someone that laughs about killing others country president been endorsed/elected)

Are you joking? Trump is _transparently_ corrupt. The Trump Foundation exists to serve as a tax shield, funneling donor money to Trump and his family personally. C.f. the allegations of corruption toward Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, which are laughably indistinct and incomparable. If corruption is what you care about, then Hillary Clinton is _inarguably_ the superior candidate.

So stuff against Trump is proven 100% for reals and stuff against Clinton is mere allegations? Hmmmm.

I'm not a Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but I do find it fascinating how easily people manage to rationalize things.

I'm sure there are TONS of folks who would decry a person for being a climate denier who would then perform the exact same mental process to 'overlook' whatever problems exist with the Clintons.

So stuff against Trump is proven 100% for reals and stuff against Clinton is mere allegations? Hmmmm.

Well there's obviously a spectrum but I think it's absolutely inarguable that Trump's foundation is a tax dodge and that Trump is transparently corrupt; and I think at worst you can say that Clinton made some bad choices, but yes absolutely the allegations against her are without proof.

I'm sure there are TONS of folks who would decry a person for being a climate denier who would then perform the exact same mental process to 'overlook' whatever problems exist with the Clintons.

Of course nobody is overlooking problems, and your attempts at equivocation are transparently concern trolling. But it's pretty inarguable that "whatever problems exist with the Clintons" are speculative and completely incomparable with "whatever problems exist with Trump".

think at worst you can say that Clinton made some bad choices

The Director of the FBI said exactly that, but that there was no malicious intent and thus no crime. Why an investigative body is making a recommendation about charges notwithstanding, when it comes to national secrets, nobody else gets the benefit of the doubt re: mens rea, it's generally interpreted as strict liability. Why did former Secretary Clinton get a seemingly free pass on this one, while members of the rank-and-file military do not? I suspect it's because they're in the rank-and-file.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/292064-troops-using-clinto...

I don't understand how Americans don't care about Hillary's lies. (actually, I do, it's called mass media manipulation, but you guys, of all modern societies in the world, should be one of few capable of fighting it).

Hillary Clinton simple says that she made a mistake and nobody asks why did she used a private email server? I think this is a huge trap, but would things go a little better for Trump if he admits that it was all a misunderstanding and he is a reformed man now?

How is it corrupt to laugh about killing a dictator/murderer in a publicly-known military action? It might be in bad taste, but it's not corrupt.

Also, you should read more about Trump: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/06/ho...

Thought experiment: Would it be any different if we replaced Donald Trump with Hitler?

Should a company dissociate with a business partner/board member/investor because he supported an extremist's political campaign?

Comparing political candidates to Hitler is a rather lazy thought experiment.

It's not lazy. It's showing the extreme (clearly unacceptable) end of the spectrum to ask someone how they decide where to draw the line. What would Trump have to do before supporting him is unacceptable to YC?

But if you really don't want to use Hitler, try Rodrigo Duterte or Silvio Berlusconi instead. They actually share a lot of similarities to Trump.

"It's showing the extreme (clearly unacceptable) end of the spectrum to ask someone how they decide where to draw the line."

That's actually very lazy. It's shifting the burden of "drawing the line" on the other side.

It's the "well, why don't we just kill toddlers as well? Where do you draw the line?" in an abortion argument. It's the "why don't we just give 12 year old's automatic assault weapons" or "why don't we disarm the police and military as well" in a gun control debate. It's the "So why don't we just tax corporations 100% of their income" in a corporate tax debate.

It puzzles me how come in USA people are considering only 2 candidates to chose from. At this stage it looks like people are not voting for the candidate they agree with, they are choosing the candidate they disagree with the most and then voting for the other one. This is only 1 step better than how it used to be in USSR where people had an option to chose essentially only 1 party. (sure officially there were more parties, as there are more candidates in USA, but it wasn't a real option in reality). Still far away from European democracies where each election you have multiple parties competing.

Your characterization of this election is wrong.

43% of Americans approve of Clinton[1].

33% approve of Trump[2].

That means the vast majority of Americans are not choosing the lesser of two evils. They actively like one candidate or the other (or both).

1. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton... 2. https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-f...

Huffington Post, seriously?

Per ABC News (which is still pro-Clinton), they are both equally unpopular:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-clinton-unpopularity-hig...

I heard an interesting idea which would be to place always a "none of the above" option on the ballot for any position, and in the event that option took majority, all candidates listed would be disqualified completely, and new ballot would need to be made.

It's an inevitable result of winner-take-all, first-past-the-post voting. This video explains the situation very well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Short of revolution, we aren't ever going to see a representative democracy here, because the two parties in power have us perfectly divided 50/50, and the status quo benefits them both greatly.

this seems to be a problem of presidential democracy (voting for 1 man). parliamentary democracy, where people are voting for a party and even specifically for multiple people nominated by the party, is solving this problem.

Right, but how do we get the US to move to a system of proportional voting and power? We're never going to get a president+congress that is controlled by one party to vote and pass new laws / ratify new amendments that change the system such that they'll no longer be in control. And we can't get the current two parties to agree on whether the sun is hot or not, let alone on radically changing the way our democracy works.

The cynic in me suspects that, despite all the fiery rhetoric, both parties are in fact very happy with the status quo and the partisan divide that exists in this country. Aside from a few battleground states/areas, most seats are perfectly safe. Mississippi isn't going blue, and California isn't going red.

While I agree with a lot of what Marco says in spirit, there is a HUGE point that Altman makes as well:

The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are. […]

This one sentence I think fully encapsulates why the Republican base has gone to the extremes it has. They don't give a damn about who Trump is or the awful things he does because he is listening to them, something the coastal intellectuals haven't done for decades.

Speaking as someone from one of the flyover states, I'd probably be supporting Trump too had I not come around to a lot more progressive viewpoints. The fact is yes a lot of what these people believe is wrong and backward, but just ignoring them and pretending that having the middle of the country doing nothing but hard labor and drugs is ok is exactly what got us here. Nobody gives a damn about the middle states outside of election year. Every year rural economies tank harder and harder but because it isn't a sexy problem like Shale Oil nobody gives a shit.

These people have been marginalized, ignored, and abandoned during some of the hardest economic transitional periods, and they're tired of it. You'd be voting for any candidate who at least gave the passing appearance of giving a damn about you were you left in that situation.

Edit: Misattributed the quote.

I think you get a lot of it right here, and nobody wants to acknowledge that for some reason. I would disagree that Trump is listening to people in the "flyover" states, but rather what he is doing is signaling that he's not in the coastal elite in-group. I'd bet Trump has very little idea how badly folks are hurting in red states, nor does he really care.

But what has happened is that those people have heard every political candidate say basically the same politically correct stuff irrespective of their D or R flavor and then once elected do basically nothing to help.

Now someone comes along who doesn't sound anything like the previous D or R flavored politicians (who never helped, despite their promises to) and TADA! "He knows and understands our problems" not because he does in any way, but simply because he sounds different.

Not even just ignoring large chunks of the country, but actively arguing that their problems don't exist and that anyone who thinks otherwise is just making excuses for racism: https://baselinescenario.com/2016/10/17/you-cant-get-there-f...

Replace "Thiel" with "communism" and much of this article (and many of these comments) could be taken from the 1950s. McCarthyism is unacceptable from the right or the left.

McCarthyism was not about firing rich people for donating massive amounts of money to public political candidates. There is no similarity here.

So, none of the Hollywood writers who were blacklisted were rich? And none of them donated time or money to Communist causes? The intolerance is almost exactly the same.

I don't have a problem with a private company, such as YC or a production company, firing someone for publicly donating a massive amount of money to a political candidate.

McCarthyism was different because:

1. Many of the people who were fired, blacklisted, or persecuted were only suspected communists.

2. Somewhat related: if any of the blacklisted people were rich enough to do so, they didn't publicly donate their day's equivalent of $1.25M to any communist cause.

3. There is no threat of violence, prison, or losing his livelihood for Thiel in this case.

"Many of the people who were fired, blacklisted, or persecuted were only suspected communists"

would it have been OK to fire, blacklist, or persecute them if they had been actual communists, then?

Shame on you for blaming Y Combinator. If it was 1.25 million for Clinton you would probably praise Y Combinator, no? This feels more like a clash between your personal political preferences and Mr Thiels's. You are just blaming Y Combinator to inflate this story, trying to get more people on the Clinton side. Shame on you!

Why do people keep making this false equivalence between the two options? One candidate has repeatedly taken racist and sexist stances, as well as demeaned those who are handicapped (and honestly, the list goes on and on). If people don't take a stand against this type of thing, it is a tacit acceptance.

A large proportion of Trump supporters are not for Donald Trump the human being and all the things he's done. They're for the Republican party being in power; they're against Clinton for her faults (real or imagined); they're for someone who isn't a mainstream candidate being in charge for once. There's all kinds of reasons to support the GOP Presidential candidate that many people may see as more important than the insane, racist, sexist things Trump has said and done.

(I say this as a left-leaning guy by Canadian standards. Believe me, I'm terrified you guys might actually elect that monster.)

Right, but a large portion of supporters are not donating over a million dollars. I'd expect that person to be for Donald Trump, rather than some vague wish for republican values.

I've traditionally associated more with Republicans than Democrats. Like many others around here, I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal. The Republican party's stance on social issues, especially marriage equality and lack of tolerance in general, has been chronically infuriating to me. I believe Thiel was the first openly gay convention speaker in the history of the Republican party. He received a standing ovation. That was a major moment that went unnoticed by many. But not by me. Consider for a moment that there may be more going on here than meets the eye. Thiel may be quietly doing more to move many old school rank-and-file Republicans out of the past and into the future than anyone else this cycle, and that's a positive development for the entire country.

You're right: many people are supporting the top of the GOP ticket out of loyalty to the GOP, or because they're pro-life. They don't support Donald Trump.

But Thiel does. We know this, because Thiel got up on stage at the Republican National Convention, in a nationally televised speech, and proclaimed to the nation that Donald Trump was the best candidate in the race --- and the only "honest" one. Thiel's support for Trump is not in question.

Many very smart, educated, and informed people I know believe that Hillary has effectively monetized public service/political influence and is the most corrupt major party nominee to run for the Presidency in modern history. If people don't take a stand against that type of thing, isn't that tacit acceptance as well? Pick your poison, so to speak. Hillary's supporters will argue that she's not corrupt and has been investigated and cleared of all charges, just as Trump's supporters will argue that he has a 40 year history of helping women and minorities shatter glass ceilings in the construction industry, and therefore is likely not a racist or a misogynist, rather just an ''equal opportunity asshole''. I think this election cycle is much more about voting against the candidate you hate, than for the candidate you love, which should make election day all the more exciting since the normal polling and turnout models could be totally off the mark.

i agree, and believe many trump voters will privately and reluctantly vote for him, and publicly say they voted for someone else for this very reason.

i also believe many others will vote for trump simply to push the country toward a breakup of the 2-party system into a 3 or 4-party system. they very well could have voted for bernie if that were an option.

In 30 years of public life, there hasn't been a single shred of evidence to back up that claim. These people you know are sadly misinformed.

"hasn't been a single shred."

http://www.g-a-i.org/u/2016/08/Report-Skolkvovo-08012016.pdf

Worth pointing out that GAI was co-founded by a STEPHEN K. BANNON which, coincidentally, is the same STEPHEN K. BANNON that runs Breitbart and is currently the campaign chairman for DONALD J. TRUMP.

Possibly not the most unbiased of sources, I think.

This is serious question-begging, though.

Most of Trump's supporters don't accept that he's racist, or generally sexist, or the other charges being made. The ones I've talked to largely believe that he's just rude, and sometimes directs that through traits like race, gender, and disability. On policy, they would say that opposing things like illegal immigration isn't actually racism.

Laugh at that if you want, say they're stupid, but realize they're saying the exact same thing about you and the claim that Hillary is dangerously corrupt. "No she isn't, it's just..." - same structure.

My point is that you can't rescue a stance of "fire Trump supporters" by saying he's the bad guy. If that were consensus reality, the election would be over.

So you're absolutely opening the door to retribution from people who think the same way in reverse. That's exactly why the value of having a norm against punishing people for holding popular opinions, no matter how divisive.

Most of Trump's supporters don't accept that he's racist, or generally sexist, or the other charges being made.

I wonder if we have enough evidence to reach that conclusion? Respectfully, I'm not sure you've talked to enough supporters to generalize about the whole group.

Speaking only for myself, if I end up voting for one of those two, it will be for Trump. I accept the strong possibility that every one of the negative personality traits he's shown are genuine.

I think in policy matters he's basically a wildcard. But I find Clinton so undesirable as a candidate that I would prefer a wildcard.

Does this mean I approve in any way of Trump's apparent personal characteristics? Absolutely not.

This is equivocation. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are in no sense equivalent. In fact, Trump is so historically bad that leading figures of his own party are disowning him. Major donors are clawing back contributions. The RNC even halted its support.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/rnc-halts-all-victory-...

If it was $1.25 million for Clinton, there would have been no complaint. If it was $1.25 million for Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or even George W Bush, there would have no complaint. Donald Trump is a different and unique circumstance, as Sam Altman and Paul Graham repeatedly claim in their writings, but do not follow through with in their actions.

Tell me one thing YC community: What american politics topics are doing on worldwide tech-focused site?

Political apartheid. We've seen it. It won't end well.

Shame on Marco.

There are some brilliant people working in this industry whose politics I abhor. That doesn't mean that we can't, don't, or won't work well together, or even that we have to leave politics at the door. I've had some great conversations with people who I strongly disagree with politically -- frustrating, yes, but still highly interesting and worthwhile for mutual understanding.

This trend of naming, shaming, and excluding political opponents has got to end. We've been here before (even as recently as the GWB / War on Terror era), and it is absolutely toxic for an open and democratic society.

I agree with you in general, but Trump is uniquely toxic. Every day he says more and more hateful and disturbing things, and threatens our open and democratic society with his constant railing against the rigged election and encouragement to supporters to go intimidate voters in typically-Democratic districts. This is not just a political difference. Trump is truly dangerous.

You Americans (at least I think the majority of you are Americans) are getting quite ridiculous arguing over this.

Supporting a political candidate is a personal choice, one that is given to every eligible individual in a democratic state. Calling for someone to be fired or sever ties with them over political choice is retarded and counter-productive.

It's also generally illegal to fire someone over political beliefs, if I recall correctly.

Nationally title 7 only protects you from the following: sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. There might be local state laws that protect you from politics, but no national law.

Religion is held higher than other forms of opinions like political stance? Weird.

Americans love to moralize and punish each other. Instead of saying that they think somebody is wrong they like to make the other person into some evil person who can't even be argued with because they are so evil. That's why there is no real political discourse but just people screaming at each other.

Americans (at least the left leaning ones) also love holiness spiral signalling wars. Its quite possible OP doesn't believe anything in the linked to article, but that style of writing is how the left does sophistry, its the progressive modern way to signal superiority and worth. Op wants attention and smugness, that's how its done in 2016. People who believe any of the linked article is literally true end up with the same logical problems as people who believe every word of a holy book is literally true. The linked article is well written sophistry but don't expect sophistry to contain anything rational. If you didn't get to irrational beliefs in a rational logical manner, you're not going to escape from irrational beliefs using rational or logical discussion, which makes debating the specific points of the sophistry pointless.

The right wingers love to do that too, not only the lefties. Call somebody "racist" or "socialist" and you have marked them as so bad that no further dialog is needed (or even possible).

    Its quite possible OP doesn't believe anything in the linked to article

By OP I assume you mean me, ie: the guy who submitted the article to HN, not the author.

First, I'm not out for attention, but thanks for that unprompted attack (dick). I submitted this as it seemed wrong that it kept being censored/flagged off HN. Honestly I expected it to be flagged off again, but hoped at least a few more people would get to see it.

For me the real issue isn't so much that Thiel is Trump supporter, but that Sam Altman and PG have both been very vocal in their denouncement of Trump, so keeping Thiel as a partner (not employee, let's be clear about that) seems incongruous at best, and down right spineless at worst.

Don't get me wrong, Donald Trump is huge cunt in my view, but even if I were indifferent to Trump, I'd still feel Thiel and Ycombinator should not be doing business together with such drastically conflicting values.

It's also probably worth mentioning I'm English and live in the UK, and this whole election reminds me of Brexit. Pretty much everyone I spoke to thought it would be a landslide for remain. Hell, even the politicians advocating leave didn't seem to think they'd win. Yet here we are, £GBP in free fall, and no one on either side seems to have any idea what to do next.

Even if it seems unlikely now, Trump could end up as president, and that's scary for a lot of people.

Sam Altman and PG have both been very vocal in their denouncement of Trump, so keeping Thiel as a partner seems incongruous at best, and down right spineless at worst.

You may have to clarify this for me, because it sounds as if you believe people with different political ideals can never work together, even on something non-political.

I think its the anonymizing nature of the internet. We're not evolved to communicate digitally. Its going to be a rough road here on out for the human race.

What? People get fired over personal choices all the time. If I leered at women at the office, then told them it was fine because they secretly liked it, I'd be out in no time. It's a personal choice to do that, and to support a candidate who does the same, but the company can absolutely take your choices into account when figuring out who isn't needed.

There is a difference between having private non-conforming opinions and openly harassing colleagues. Only the latter is an obvious lack of virtue.

Although to be fair, it's not clearcut. If you quietly say you support someone who is openly harassing colleagues, that is basically harassment by proxy. Being less direct could actually be worse, since it's passive-aggressive.

I'm not implying that applies in this case.

Adult life is full of personal choices that adults are required to be accountable for.

Then perhaps you'd like to get rid of anonymous voting?

No, I would not like to get rid of anonymous voting.

Ask a simple question, get a simple answer.

But you would like to punish people who are publicly backing a candidate. Not very consistent.

Voter registration is already public in many states (and searchable online). While that doesn't include actual votes, it does include party affiliation which is obviously a strong indicator. Beyond some extreme exceptions, you can't even opt-out of being listed in this publicly searchable database which includes your home address as well. In other words, voting is hardly anonymous even today.

And even that doesn't account for recent massive scale (191M people) leaks [1].

https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/3yinij/entire_us_v...

You don't have to put a political affiliation.

Almost nobody will agree with the idea that in an ideal world built upon the "marketplace of ideas" that someone should be constrained from expressing political opinions for fear of losing their employment.

In fact this being so is a primary driver of Trump's anti-PC appeal.

Nobody is losing their employment in this discussion. Thiel doesn't even have equity in YC. His part-time partner status is a marketing arrangement, a co-endorsement. All that Sam Altman is being asked to do is to reconsider endorsing Thiel.

Meanwhile, all sorts of misconceptions are behind the appeal of Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a monster. I do not think reasonable people are required to change their behavior to assuage the misconceptions of his deluded followers.

Donald Trump is a monster.

Such thoughtful discussion backed by so many supporting arguments.

You think this a damning argument. But no reasonable reader thinks we couldn't blow the thread up to 1000 more comments, each choc-a-bloc with vivid details, about the terrible flaws of Donald Trump.

The reason I'm not taking the bait is that the debate on this thread isn't about Donald Trump, and I'm not going to help you muddy the waters.

No, I mean what I've said repeatedly. If you support Donald Trump, or even just think he's no worse than Hillary Clinton, I'll agree to disagree with you and move on. But Sam Altman does not agree with you. Sam Altman compares Donald Trump to a dictator. Paul Graham compared him to Stalin.

The debate is about whether Altman can continue to endorse an important member of Trump's campaign while still believing that Trump is an existential threat to democracy. If Altman is sanguine about a Trump presidency, his support for Thiel is understandable. I don't think that he is.

Fair enough re: employment, but if we shift "employed by" to "do business with" it's still the same discussion.

A theme going on here is a binary state regarding how we should treat individuals and consider their positions. This idea of "endorsing" Thiel means you are supporting all of his political views and not just his business views. That if one supports Trump one is all-in on all of his positions.

For example, many of Trump's supporters are identifying with his economic message. They may find his immigration stance to be distasteful but the overriding concern is the economy, so they are willing to suck it up. Trump's bloc isn't a monolithic group with shared priorities.

Altman's position on this is exactly correct- expressing his disagreement with Thiel but with the maturity to quash the urge to run away from or "punish" Thiel. We would be better off as a society if we all adopted this mindset.

If we shift "employment" to "do business with", we have formulated an argument that boycotts are unethical. So, no, I don't think that gets us anywhere.

Boycotts are designed to force a _business_ to change behavior.

If we extend this into the realm of the individual and political speech, it is a totally different animal with clear dangers for freedom of expression.

I am not myself sure if I would consider it a moral failing to "boycott" an individual as a pressure tactic in these circumstances (or more like misguided social engineering) but it is definitely laudable to take a more nuanced view as Altman and YC have done.

Businesses are made of people. But your argument is even less coherent than that. When people boycotted Nestle, they were supporting a campaign whose intended impact could have put thousands of people out of work, many of whom had no opposition at all to the boycotter's ideas. Boycotting a company is an even more grave act than criticizing some dude with more than one McLaren about endorsing a Trump campaign surrogate who could most likely buy McLaren Automotive. But we tolerate and accept boycotts, as we must, because they are a form of political speech.

Can we stop with the straw man of people getting fired for their views! That is so over the top as to be ridiculous.

We have seen many examples in the last decade of "enemies of the left" being fired and no platformed for their views. This campaign targeting Thiel appears to be a product of the same value system, so it is understandable that some people consider it relevant to the discussion.

from: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/08/the-slate-star-codex-po...

2. The anchor of a major news network donates lots of money to organizations fighting against gay marriage, and in his spare time he writes editorials arguing that homosexuals are weakening the moral fabric of the country. The news network decides they disagree with this kind of behavior and fire the anchor.

a) This is acceptable; the news network is acting within their rights and according to their principles

b) This is outrageous; people should be judged on the quality of their work and not their political beliefs

12. The principal of a private school is a member of Planned Parenthood and, off-duty, speaks out about contraception and the morning after pill. The board of the private school decides this is inappropriate given the school’s commitment to abstinence and moral education and asks the principal to stop these speaking engagements or step down from his position.

a) The school board is acting within its rights; they can insist on a principal who shares their values

b) The school board should back off; it’s none of their business what he does in his free time

If you answer these questions differently, you need to try to apply your so-called principles consistently. This article is bullshit for the same reason the Brendan Eich affair was bullshit--if the situation were reversed, the same people calling for Brendan Eich's head would have been ardently defending someone who had been fired for donating to marijuana legalization or something. As long as he's not discriminating or smoking weed in the workplace, etc., YOU SHOULD NOT PERSECUTE SOMEONE FOR HIS BELIEFS or how they affect his political contributions.

Sigh. People keep bringing up Brendan Eich. What happened there is very simple: a good chunk of Mozilla PR and marketing is about freedom. Software and online freedom, yes, but the word "freedom" is used a fair bit. Eich monetarily supported a cause that aimed to take away freedom for a certain class of people. This is incongruent for the face of an organization that has freedom one of its core messages.

Mozilla is fairly unique in tech world in this regard. Nearly all other companies don't really talk about freedom. If Eich was the CEO of any of those other companies, his donation would not (and should not) have mattered. If Eich had remained CTO of Mozilla, his donation would not have mattered either, as the CTO is not the face of the organization. The CEO's beliefs, however, do need to align with the core messaging of the company.

As for those who say that in 2008, opposing gay marriage was a mainstream view, and even Obama opposed it: in 2012, Obama publicly went on the record that his views had shifted to support. The Mozilla/Eich thing went down in 2014, and Eich had an opportunity to communicate that he'd changed his views. If he did that sincerely, he'd likely be CEO of Mozilla today. Instead he stood by his 2008 views, reaffirming that he's on the wrong side of history.

ALSO his inability to handle the controversy demonstrated his lack of CEO abilities.

Your questions present a false dichotomy. You can be against the news anchor merely because of his principles and against the school board because of theirs.

To me this is logically consistent because you believe the viewpoints themselves are incorrect.

Marcos understanding of this situation is extremely telling for a fundamental problem with many americans relationship with politics. Most only get involved around election. After that their political interest is non existing.

It's easy to get lured into the idea that politics is a simple choice between the moral good and the moral bad, that the choice is simple and that there is a one to one relationship between what you vote for and what you get.

In reality however it's much more complicated. For all the crazy things Trump says, for all is egoism he has some very important points which needs to be addressed and discussed and he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years. A group who are themselves excluded from society. A group who experience their own form of discrimination by the likes of Marcos, me and everyone else who are benefitting from the progress of technology, globalization, taxation rules and so on.

Marcos is all about form. Trumps form is admittedly not pretty but there are some important issues and for Theil a different political goal than Trump which isn't represented by Hillary. If you can't understand that then you make the mistakes of Marco et all. You confuse rhetorics with whats at stake.

If you don't want dissent, fine just admit it. That way at least you are being honest. Don't wrap your lack of political understanding into some claim of decency.

Racism is not just racism, sexism is not just sexism. These are complicated matters by the very nature of them being about human relationships.

So don't be the very thing your object to.

And no I don't want to defend Trump or Theil but rather the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions. Life is complicated and it happens all the time not just around election. There are many good reasons to be against Trump or Peter Theils endorsement of him, Marcos reasons just arent any of them. They are purely superficial understanding of what's really at stake here.

he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/d...

the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions

This is not a principle, let alone a fundamental one, in any democracy or any other kind of society.

> the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions

This is not a principle, let alone a fundamental one, in any democracy or any other kind of society.

While this is literally true, I feel the need to point out that increased restrictions on speech, and increased repercussions for speech seem to correlate strongly with non-democracies.

Exposure to criticism is not a "restriction on speech".

Read this: https://baselinescenario.com/2016/10/17/you-cant-get-there-f...

The very same Gallup study which that Vox article relied on to argue that Trump support was correlated with higher, not lower income also found that blue collar and less educated workers were disproportionately likely to vote for Trump, and Vox intentionally omitted that fact. This is particularly dishonest of Vox because the result they did quote was after correcting for the fact that working-class status and education are correlated with income, and they didn't mention that either.

That is, any correlation with income that appeared to be better explained by both being correlated with being working-class or anything else was excluded, and worse still there's no guarantee that the attribution to a particular category (say, class instead of income) is the result of anything other than random chance.

I'm pretty sure a huge portion of Trump's support is from people that are essentially single issue tax and supreme court voters (for the presidential election). Or even a Yuuuge portion. Jerry Falwell Jr. isn't struggling or left out of the political process.

I also don't understand what everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions is supposed to mean. If someone repeatedly says stupid things, one of the repercussions is that I'm going to start thinking they aren't very thoughtful. Do they have a right to not be judged by me? Or are you referring to some grayer area of repercussions that they should not have to face?

I think the idea is that you thinking they are stupid is much different from being fired from a job (or removed as a partner, however you would frame this scenario). The changing externalities leads to that gray area.

I think you are mistaken there: single-issue tax and supreme court voters are not a very big part of Trump's support base.

This piece in Cracked managed to explain a lot of the red state support with genuine understanding. The bottom line is, people lash out when they don't have a voice.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on...

(I'm sorry the headline is just as stupid as all Cracked headlines are. The article is not.)

Wrong. This exactly the kind of sophistry that Marco refutes. Political positions are moral positions, to believe otherwise is hopelessly naive

in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions

No, that's not what free speech is. You have the right to say what you want but you must accept the consequences.

You have the right to say what you want but you must accept the consequences.

So, for the sale of argument: if Trump is democratically elected and then begins reprisals of his political enemies, you must accept those consequences?

Political positions are not moral positions. There's more than one way to accomplish a goal, and even if you share goals, it might be that you just think that the priority of these goals are different.

I think the best way to increase the American quality of life is to allow more choices, more trade, and reduce taxation. This gets me branded as being "anti-poor". I want the same thing as you, I just think there's different ways to go about it.

I'll granted that sometimes political positions come from moral positions, but they are not a 1:1 match, and you can't claim you know the best way to enact a set of moral positions.

"the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions"

I think you are mixing things, Democracy does not give anyone the right to be liked even when they say awful stuff. Marco is not saying that supporting Trump should be illegal, he is saying that supporting Trump is shameful, and that supporting someone who supports Trump at such scale is shameful too.

`Supporting` someone who supports Trump? You do realize he's not their employee, he's wealthy, and most certainly wouldn't change his mind if YC or all of you disagreed with him, right?

This is all political/"moral outrage" theater.

Only if you presume the point is to change Thiel's mind - which it clearly isn't.

he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years

No he doesn't. He doesn't appeal to or represent poor whites, those vote D. He also doesn't appeal to or represent minorities, immigrants, or women. Those also vote D. He appeals to and represents white men that have a household income slightly higher than the median. Those people have been nothing but listened to for the last 140 years.

You've been talking with a different set of poor whites than I have.

I'm not a Trump supporter or potential voter, but we fool ourselves when we invoke this caricature.

Hopefully their information doesn't come from talking to people. There are better sources.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-...

I am not even living in US, but wanted to give you some data to show that you are wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/04/death...

Also, last I checked women had plenty of voice in the last 40 years... beside being the majority of the voters (and thus always pandered to by default), US have no-fault divorce (something that usually only women want, most no-fault divorce are initiated by women), abortion is legal (Brazil for example where I live, abortion is still mostly illegal), Title IX exists, VAWA exists, more women than men finish college, female labour participation is higher than male, and so on...

That is in fact not a fundamental principle of democracy. There is no work of political philosophy anywhere that suggests we should be able to say whatever we'd like "without fear of repercussions". What is a principle of liberal philosophy, though, is that we should be tolerant of the beliefs of others (in the sense of not intervening to suppress them), including intolerant beliefs, until those intolerant beliefs threaten society.

You may not believe Trump is a real thread to society. I disagree. So far, so good. The issue here is: Sam Altman and Paul Graham disagree too. Both of them compare Trump to a dictator. Paul Graham compared him to Stalin. Both Altman and Graham believe, like I do, that Trump is an existential threat to our democracy.

Sam Altman cannot coherently believe this while supporting Peter Thiel, who is not just a Trump supporter, but an important part of the Trump campaign. Even most leaders of the Republican party refused to get on stage at the RNC to support Trump. Thiel did. When he did, he used his time to claim that Donald Trump was the only honest candidate in the race. He bundled millions of dollars of donations for Trump. And, just last week, after Trump pivoted his campaign as a crusade against the legitimacy of our elections and of the black vote, Thiel donated $1.25MM more.

Nobody denies Sam Altman's right to support Peter Thiel, or, for that matter, Thiel's right to support Trump. But we are all very much entitled to criticize what Altman is doing, and we would be doing Altman no favors by withholding that criticism.

But we are all very much entitled to criticize what Altman is doing, and we would be doing Altman no favors by withholding that criticism.

Why are you entitled to do it in the most publicly way you are able?

Because he is willing to face the repercussions of doing so.

What repercussions? The situation strikes me as asymmetric: no matter what action Altman or Graham take they will be heavily criticized; for Ptacek, the worst would seem to be disagreement with his well-reasoned dialogue.

It seems unfair to force this to become a very public conversation.

Sam Altman has so much money that he divides his time between multiple McLarens. His "reserve fund" in case of emergencies is ten million dollars. Altman need never work again in his life. That's not me, especially after my two teenage kids go to college.

I'm a startup founder. Not only that, but I'm a startup founder that just last year considered attending YC during the summer session after Altman invited me (and, more likely, my then-cofounder Patrick McKenzie). I have friendships with people inside of YC, and with YC founders. Moreover, the company I'm building now works exclusively with startups, most of them at the YC stage of development, no doubt many of whom will actually be YC companies. How likely am I to get that invite again?

Furthermore, Peter Thiel is famously the most vindictive investor in Silicon Valley. He bragged about it, I believe, to the New York Times. I've had the pleasure of being blackballed by a group of different VC firms in the past.

If you think I have nothing to lose by antagonizing Sam Altman and, I guess, Peter Thiel (I think I have some safety from being too insignificant for Thiel to care about), I'd ask you to reevaluate.

Reading what you've written, it sounds like you are saying that Altman and people associated with YC are sufficiently petty that they would refuse to work with you in the future because of a political disagreement. Am I interpreting this correctly? That would seem to be at odds with Altman's actions and public persona so far.

If you think I have nothing to lose by antagonizing Sam Altman

Altman's handling of this Thiel situation suggests that he'd handle it gracefully and would not hold it against you, out of respect for your personal beliefs and out of respect for your acting in a principled way, even if he disagreed with your conclusions, etc.

as long as no one have actually formulated an argument based on facts how Trump is a threat to democracy I dont see how he is more dangerous than Hillary, Bush or Obama. And i am pretty sure a large portion of people outide the US see those three as bigger threats to their lives than Trump given US foreign policy.

So until someone show how the us system can be destroyed by Trump I stand by my position that Trump is no more dangerous than Hillary.

But you are basically saying that what you believe doesent apply in the case of Trump and so you are ok with ignoring your own principles while claiming he is the one who is guilty?

If you believe that Trump is no more dangerous than Clinton, your support for Peter Thiel makes sense, and, while I'd implore you to reconsider, I'm content for us to agree to disagree.

But Sam Altman and Paul Graham don't agree with you. They virulently disagree with you. They repeatedly compare Trump to a fascist dictator. They claim Trump is an existential threat to our democracy. Paul Graham said that if Trump wins, he'll "join the resistance".

I agree with Altman and Graham on that. But I feel obligated to point out to them both --- Altman in particular --- that what they say about Trump is incompatible with the manner in which they affiliate with Peter Thiel, who is a part of the Trump campaign.

Or perhaps you are hijacking their words and misrepresent their actual opinions.

Perhaps they dont believe its as litterally as you do. It would certainly make sense since claiming Trump is Stalin is as ill informed as it is absurd.

Just like you are ready to ignore your principles for a bigger belief so is Theil. He is not voting for Trump he is voting for change. The very change everyone agrees is needed.

I am not.

Apparently they dont believe him to be a big enough threat to cut ties with Thiel for supporting him. Make of that what you want.

Thank you. This perception is exactly why we keep telling Sam Altman and Paul Graham that they need to reconsider their stance on Peter Thiel.

Thank you. This perception is exactly why we keep telling Sam Altman and Paul Graham that they need to reconsider their stance on Peter Thiel.

You do concede that people (including Thiel) can be decent and support Trump? I know plenty of good people who support him and for good reasons.

If Altman is comfortable with the idea that his actions are encouraging people to comfortably support Donald Trump, then I'm comfortable with him continuing to endorse Peter Thiel.

Of course a decent person can support Trump, if by decent you mean hard working, honest, responsible, etc.

This isn't about the decency or not of Trump supporters. It's about indirectly supporting Trump and thereby increasing the chances he'll be elected.

Altman's and YC's non-disavowal of Thiel supports that outcome. Altman's support is a layer removed from writing a check for Trump, but it's still support.

If Altman believes (as he seems to) that a Trump presidency would be very bad for America, it's hard to see why he would not specifically repudiate Thiel's actions. That's different from repudiating a friendship.

If you had a friend who used their considerable resources to publicly and materially support what you believed to be a truly bad outcome for America, would you not consider saying, "I can't go there with you, and I can't let my company's prestige support you while you do."?

It's a simple comparison really:

Trump - (paraphased) Muslims are evil, they should be registered and have special restrictions placed on them.

He singled out a single religious group. Made them the target of a group of people that are disposed to hating them. It goes against the very spirit of modern western democracy. To many it represents a clear and unforseen threat to our country. Even Bush who was clearly the most aggressive of the recent presidents in dealing with Muslim states, stopped WAY short of that. Clinton has clearly not singled out any one group, clearly tried to bring more people together. To compare the two is blatantly overlooking the clear differences in Trump's campaign and nearly every other one in recent history.

There’s a major problem with Muslim refugees in Europe right now. My girlfriend used to love visiting Paris, now it’s basically a no-go zone even in daytime. What he’s saying is based on reality, even if it makes you feel all bad inside when you hear it. Even in the US, where the refugee problem doesn’t exist, you still learn after terrorist attacks that, f.e. the family knew, or that the attacker had bomb equipment all over the apartment, but nobody said anything.

These are national security issues, and they need to be addressed by the president, i’m glad he’s doing it, same for illegal immigration, even if he’s doing it in a cringe-worthy, populist way. He’s not a life-long politician.

Anytime a tragedy happens right now, first thing you hear is Obama and Clinton taking about guns being the problem, and wanting to disarm you, or that all Muslims are amazing people. You never hear the problem being addressed. It is rather scary to see your president, and potential future president do that.

My girlfriend used to love visiting Paris, now it’s basically a no-go zone even in daytime.

What are you talking about. I've lived in Paris for 40+ years, there is no special problems. We had terrorists attacks, we may have more, but basically nobody cares much about it or talks about it, and life is the same as it's always been (lots of traffic, lots of people in the subway, weather not great).

major problem with Muslim refugees in Europe

I'm a theological noncognitivist so I couldn't care less about what religion is more "evil" but move any group (Muslim, Christian or even a bunch of Pastafarians) from such a condition to the middle of Europe, and you will get similar results. They are more human than they are Muslim.

I'm not going to go on about how not actually that bad the situation is because that is not the point.

Paris a no-go zone, in daytime? That's laughable.