Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday November 20 2016, @10:27PM   Printer-friendly
from the points-to-ponder dept.

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?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday November 21 2016, @03:13AM

    by jmorris (4844) on Monday November 21 2016, @03:13AM (#430294)

    It says a lot about your credibility when you say politico is fake news but insist that breitbart is not really alt-right despite the CEO's claim that "We're the platform for the alt-right,"

    They aren't what anyone else on the alt-right really considers alt-right. But they do seem to be the closest thing to mass media allowing them to get any coverage other than "haters! racisss! shun!". Sorta like Rupert Murcoch's FNC isn't some sort of conservative bastion either, it just doesn't go out of their way to insult half the country and has a couple of fairly vanilla conservatives as prime time commentators.

    Go read some real alt-right sites and compare. The difference isn't hard to see.

    Or... because it wasn't actually written yet since that shit is complicated.

    A fast Google should get you the same thing I found a bit earlier. (on a differnt machine now, so no browser history... bleh) NPR says the Senate actually voted on an amendment and passed it 52 to something at some point in the Obama years, but not the required supermajority though. But while I assume there was actual language being voted on, not even a mention of HOW it was supposed to overturn it. Because there isn't any way to overturn it without enraging every sane American who can see the consequences have to be far worse than any objection to the current situation.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2