SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The fallout of the American Presidential election of 2016 continues, and many are concerned about what the eventual consequences will be. One potential member of a Trump administration has many more worried than not. Observe:
As Donald Trump commences his ghastly slouch toward Washington, a coterie of sycophants snatches at his coattails: Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie—we knew this particular trio would scurry after heightened relevance and authority. Unsurprisingly, all three have slavered their way to the president-elect's transition team, and possibly into the Cabinet. Less expected, perhaps, was billionaire PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel's recent appointment to the same advisory committee. And yet, an alliance between Trump and Thiel, however appalling, seems so fitting that hindsight renders it almost preordained.
One wonders about the temperament of the President-Elect, but even more about the basket of, um, unemployed, that swarm around him seeking positions in the new administration. Peter Thiel is well know for having bankrupted Gawker over the Hulk Hogan affair, but for personal reasons.
But Thiel did not bankroll Hogan's lawsuit in a show of fraternity. He had nurtured a grudge since December 2007, when Gawker published an article entitled, "Peter Thiel is totally gay, people." Thiel condemned Gawker for publicly outing him, though the site contended that he had already disclosed his sexuality to those in his social sphere. Although Thiel referred to Gawker as "a singularly terrible bully," he did not pursue legal action. Instead, his rancor smoldered until, nine years later, he landed a belated—but fatal—blow.
What might such vindictiveness accomplish with more than millions of dollars, but the full faith and credit of the United States, if it sought to silence criticism, whistle-blowing, truth-telling and journalism? Should Soylentils be worried?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 20 2016, @10:37PM
All the libbies have their panties in a wad.
Has Thiel be involved in any scandals filled with suicides? Come on Aristarchus - get yourself some new panties that don't wad up, and just get over this crap. Had the other leading candidate won, things would be much worse than with the present company of thieves.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @10:45PM
"The other candidate would have been worse!" isn't a defense. Trump is appointing neocon authoritarians into various positions of power, and this should result in him being criticized. Many people voted for him because he seemed anti-establishment, but now he's appointing establishment hacks left and right. People should not "get over" this, because it's genuinely terrible.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 20 2016, @10:54PM
Neocons? I thought it was alt-right? FFS, you guys can't even make up your minds which tags you're going to use. The neocons are almost history now. Bush-Cheney, remember? I'm not going to argue that the current bunch are "better" than neocons, but they are different. Trump hasn't signed on to a proclamation that consigns all humans on Earth to work for the enrichment of Wall Street, as Bush-Cheney did.
Neocons. You guys gotta keep your tags straight enough to at least make some kind of warped sense.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:08PM
I thought it was alt-right? FFS, you guys can't even make up your minds which tags you're going to use.
How very tribal of you. I didn't vote for or support Trump or Clinton, and am libertarian Is that what you meant by "you guys"?
Whatever other political labels you want to assign to these people, they're definitely authoritarians. Trump should be criticized if he decides to put them into positions of power. Just misdirecting the conversation and talking about Clinton isn't going to cut it.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:13PM
I meant "you guys who have to constantly tag and label human beings into categories". If you must categorize people so that it is easier to make stereotypes, at least keep them straight!! If the president-elect were a neo-con, a hell of a lot of Republicans would have jumped up to support him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:28PM
If you must categorize people so that it is easier to make stereotypes, at least keep them straight!!
You don't even know who you're talking to, so how do you know I don't keep the labels straight? Seems like you might be placing me into some group I don't affiliate with.
The infighting was most likely due to tribalism and politics, not because Trump is significantly different from them.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:48PM
Maybe - but I'm searching for your trigger word. Guess I haven't found it yet. But, if you keep your labels straight, why would you imply that Trump is a neocon? Or - was that the other AC? You guys all look alike. Oh - wait - is that racist? Fuck it, you do look alike!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @03:22AM
> If the president-elect were a neo-con, a hell of a lot of Republicans would have jumped up to support him.
Trump is everything and nothing which means he is whatever the person talking to him is.
They've been floating John Bolton and Rudy Guilani as possibles for secretary of state both of whom are hardcore necons.
If they hire one, then Trump will be a neocon on foreign policy and that's where being a neocon matters most.
Rand Paul is flipping out. [politico.com]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:01PM
but now he's appointing establishment hacks left and right
Trump axed Chris Christie. He's more or less behaving himself.
Its important to point out that some political clickbait site that said Clinton was leading by 30 points going into the election can propose that Trump is about to appoint Darth Cheney himself but that proves just about precisely nothing both in reality and at this early stage.
Now alt-right authoritarians, that I agree with and like. I donno how "establishment" is Breitbart, well that answer will imply a lot about how you feel about so and so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @02:25AM
He is also appointing a gay dude. Wasn't the establishment primarily against the same-sex folks? Looks like you only see what you want to see eh?
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday November 21 2016, @03:56AM
I'm waiting for the smoke to clear before I make too many judgments about his Presidency. I find some of these choices to be rather disturbing, such as Bannon, but by the same token, TPP is dead and Clinton would almost certainly have continued pushing for it. So, on the count there's at least one bit of silver-lining.
The thing though is that he's already been elected, it would require an unprecedented 3 dozen electors to swap their votes for Clinton without any swapping the other way in order for her to win the vote. And that's assuming that she'd even take it at this point, the whole idea of the electoral college needs to go, it made sense when they established the practice, but there's just too much access to information now to require it.
We'll see what ultimately comes of this, but if anything bad comes, remember to lay the blame squarely where it belongs, on Trump and the incompetents working for the DNC and Clinton.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 21 2016, @12:00PM
They wouldn't do something like that. It would be the end of the United States right now.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @05:01AM
> It would be the end of the United States right now.
So instead we are kicking the can down the road.
If something crazy happens on this manbaby's watch, like N Korea decides to nuke tokyo, we are sooo fucked.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @05:35AM
The electors don't have to choose between clinton and trump.
They can pick another republican.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/tulis-levinson-suri-hail-mary-defeat-donald-trump-article-1.2882315 [nydailynews.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @08:28PM
Appointing a gay dude doesn't magically make his other choices better. People like Bolton and Guilani are utterly toxic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @04:59AM
No bonus for hiring a gay guy if your vice president is the kind homophobe who:
(1) Signed Indiana's anti-gay rights Religious Freedom Restoration Act with a bunch of unapologetic homophobes literally at his back. [glaad.org]
(2) Campaigned for congress on this platform: [buzzfeed.com]
• Congress should oppose any effort to put gay and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status with heterosexual marriage.
• Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexual’s as a “discreet and insular minority” entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities.
• Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus. Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior.
(3) Opposed gay people serving in the military [esquire.com]
(4) Wanted tax dollars spent on gay conversion therapy [politifact.com] - aka "pray the gay away."
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday November 21 2016, @11:18AM
The neocons got him this victory, by playing to anti-establishment vote. Everyone knows what Trump is going to do. The magic is that first time anti-establishment vote is big enough to 'trump' liberals and Hillary supporters. I have my doubts but most people want the liberals to "get better" instead of playing gender games while bombing American citizens.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by butthurt on Sunday November 20 2016, @10:58PM
Ms. Clinton had a former Goldman Sachs investment banker as her campaign chief executive, and another as her national finance chairman, didn't she?
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-08-31/steven-mnuchin-businessweek [bloomberg.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:01PM
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/hillary-clinton-necono-republican-endorsements-donald-trump-policy-issues [theguardian.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:39PM
Donald Trump is signaling that he wants to appoint his campaign finance chairman, Steven Mnuchin, as Treasury secretary, according to a person close to the campaign.
Trump's preference for the Goldman Sachs alumnus is the latest evidence that the GOP presidential nominee would be inclined to hire officials with experience in the business world should he win next week's election, despite the anti-establishment tone that has dominated the campaign.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/steven-mnuchin-treasury-donald-trump-230716 [politico.com]
(Score: 2) by n1 on Monday November 21 2016, @12:19AM
I'd like to bring you back to something you said [soylentnews.org] a few months ago regarding Thiel and what he said about the importance of facebook.
Thiel was there at the start of facebook, helping it on the way to what it is today.
From an article I posted previously about the man:
The Guardian [theguardian.com]
By all means, support Trump as president, but don't become a cheerleader for hypocrisy and ignorant policy decisions like the Obama supporters have for the last 8 years.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Monday November 21 2016, @12:37AM
That Guardian article... It's not an interview, but it appears to be the first and only source for that quote. Everyone else lists it as the source, but all The Guardian says is that he said it as one point. Seems pretty sketchy to me.
(Score: 3, Informative) by n1 on Monday November 21 2016, @01:25AM
Here are some quotes that are from an article he wrote himself [cato-unbound.org] which to me paint a similar picture as the quote from The Guardian.
Make of it what you will, but Thiel is very much his own man with his own agenda, and i'd bet he's a lot smarter than Trump, with more of a vision too. He was working on big data with CIA funding back in 2003 and then helped fund facebook in 2004. He's also on the steering committee and the 'nothing to see here' Bilderberg Group.
He certainly has the capacity to be a great thing for the country if he finds himself in a position of power in government. But I fear that he, the same as trump will enrich themselves first, and just work on that technology to make capitalism free from democracy if they have time.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Monday November 21 2016, @02:44AM
But I fear that he, the same as trump will enrich themselves first, and just work on that technology to make capitalism free from democracy if they have time.
Right... and HRC and all the other career politicos are honest folks that don't/aren't enriching themselves, in some shape or form, first? Just curious, are you really that naive?
For the record, I have no doubt Trump have some very bad characteristic that he brings to the table, a bunch of others that are as bad as other career politicians/HRC, but he also brings something new to it. It remains to be seen how much he can deliver.
And no, I don't believe he is Hitler or will bring on the apocalypse
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 21 2016, @04:34AM
I have to thank you for bringing some intelligence to this "conversation". My reaction was to a Hillary supporter bemoaning the total loss of freedom in the next few years. Poster supplied no evidence whatsoever, instead resorting to meaningless insults. Coterie of sycophants? Like, his chosen party lacks it's own coterie?
Thiel isn't anyone I want to support - Trump isn't anyone I want to support for that matter. But, when our alt-left starts whining and crying about America's choices, I can't help rubbing it in a little.
The real problem here is, how will congress and the senate shape up? Are they all going to toe the line, and go along with the administration? We see evidence that isn't going to happen. But, then again, maybe. Congress hasn't been doing a very effective job for the past 50 years. When lobbyists wave money under their noses, most congress critters buckle. The senate is only slightly better than congress.
We're pretty much back to the starting point in politics. Anyone who seeks political power is unqualified to hold political power.
But, let me gloat a little more. Our new administration WILL NOT BE DEMOCRAT!! All the doom-sayers from the alt-left can just suck it!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @12:23PM
You could take the moral high ground and just not respond?
Trump is a fucking clown, but a vote for Clinton was a vote for the status quo and people have had enough of that, which is why she should never have been a candidate. It didn't help that she appears to view herself as the only one worthy of being President, the only right and true choice. Nobody likes self-proclaimed princelings.
We have that idiocy in the Labour Party at the moment: the loudest voices against the current leader - who, despite his problems, has brought a huge bunch of new, paying members to the party - are those from an established dynasty, the likes of Hilary (son of Tony) Benn and Stephen (son of Neil) Kinnock. This is particularly galling in the case of the latter as Neil Kinnock was an unadulterated failure as an opposition leader. Also in evidence is the nastiest back-stabbing of the old-school trades unions, beautifully displayed by Tom Watson like the tail on a peacock; thankfully he is also as woefully inept as those nasty, back-stabbing old-school trades unionists tend to be.
I just looked-up 'princelings' on Wikipedia. It's more apt than I thought for the Labour Party.
(Score: 1) by i286NiNJA on Monday November 21 2016, @07:09PM
Trump supporters elected a freak of nature for acting like a barroom loudmouth.
Then they got excited when he changed as soon as he was elected??? Like why would you vote for someone and get excited that he's fake?
Now he's appointed a bunch of the kinds of people he said he was fighting. Their qualifications seem to be less important than loyalty or previous dicksucking. Trump already sacrificed 2 prior allies to show he will fuck you if you cross him. He's going to make mattis secdef in an effort to pander to vets. Except he doesn't know that mattis won't put up with his bullshit.
Trump supporters have already exceeded the amount of doublethink coming out of even the most confused obama voter.