SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
AlterNet reports
A new report by the Huffington Post [September 15] reveals Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump told Peter Thiel he would nominate the PayPal co-founder and one-man anti-free speech crusader to the Supreme Court if elected president.
Thiel--who bankrolled a devastating blow to First Amendment rights earlier this year when he secretly paid $10 million in legal expenses to support Hulk Hogan's defamation lawsuit against Gawker Media--is apparently just the type of freedom-loving, Bill of Rights-protecting intellectual Trump hopes to stack on the Supreme Court.
A source close to Thiel told Huffington Post the GOP candidate "deeply loves Peter Thiel", which isn't terribly surprising considering Thiel served as a delegate for Trump, spoke at the candidate's convention, and pretty much became a walking how-to guide for Trump's promise to "open up libel laws". According to the source, Trump has "made it clear he will nominate" Thiel.
"It's not clear whether Trump has indeed offered to nominate Thiel--only that Thiel has said Trump would nominate him and that Trump's team has discussed Thiel as a possible nominee", the Huffington Post article reads. "Both sources requested anonymity, given that Trump and Thiel have each demonstrated a willingness to seek revenge against parties they feel have wronged them."
Both Thiel's spokesperson and Trump's press secretary denied Trump's indication, and Thiel--who sits on Facebook's board and serves as the chairman of the software company Palantir--told the Huffington Post he's not interested in the job.
We've previously referenced Thiel in contexts from "Mean People" to vampirism.
See also:
Trump camp denies report that he would consider Peter Thiel for Supreme Court
Peter Thiel denies he's talking to Donald Trump about Supreme Court job.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Saturday September 17 2016, @07:13AM
Most supporters on either side can't name a single policy the candidates support.
So, is that a literacy issue?
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ [hillaryclinton.com]
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions [donaldjtrump.com]
Granted, both are pretty high level, but I imagine that it would be difficult for anyone who supports either candidate to be ignorant of their positions on every issue.
Then again, Heinlein warned us about this back in 1959:
Can anyone identify the "disastrous possible?"
Sure you you can.
I knew you could.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 17 2016, @06:29PM
The "disastrous possible" is the massive amount of harm that is inflicted by a hopelessly corrupt, authoritarian duopoly remaining in power for hundreds of years, not the short-term harm that results from several 'greater evil' candidates, you short-sighted twit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 17 2016, @06:32PM
So unless you can demonstrate that voting for the 'lesser evil' is more likely to result in an end to the duopoly than, say, voting third party and utilizing the perception of the spoiler effect as a weapon, this seems rather foolish.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday September 18 2016, @01:29AM
The "disastrous possible" is the massive amount of harm that is inflicted by a hopelessly corrupt, authoritarian duopoly remaining in power for hundreds of years, not the short-term harm that results from several 'greater evil' candidates, you short-sighted twit.
I see you've decided to project your own shortcomings ("short-sighted twit") onto me. Well done. Carry on.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr