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 Grishnakh on Monday November 21 2016, @05:18PM
Oh please, what a pile of crap. The only reason Hillary got as far as she did was because of corporate funding; anything overturning Citizens United would prevent her from winning a re-election. Her opponents (both Bernie and Trump) got as far as they did without all that SuperPAC political advertising that she benefitted from.
Hillary was well known to make speeches for progressive causes that she didn't really believe in, just because it got her votes. Her platform completely changed between when she first started this race and when Bernie because such a threat to her. To believe that she would have actually acted on any of those promises is pure naivety; she was just telling voters what they wanted to hear, and as soon as she took office would have done whatever her corporate backers wanted her to. Promising to overturn CU was just another one of these empty promises.