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: 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.