That's not what he's doing. Paul Graham and Sam Altman have both openly repudiated Trump, not as someone whose ideas they disagree with but as someone whose efforts threaten the fabric of our society. Both Graham and Altman has publicly (and correctly) called Trump an aspiring dictator.

It is not then a "struggle session" when we point out to both of them that their actions and beliefs are incoherent: that they can comfortably disavow Trump while continuing to collaborate with one of Trump's chief enablers.

They are both, in a very small but (I think) meaningful way, working for the benefit of Donald Trump and the forces that make Trump possible.

If you support Trump, you are arguably in a safer moral position than Graham and Altman. Both of them believe you to be supporting a modern-day Mussolini. They have no regard at all for your politics. But they're both willing to continue profiting from and generating profit for Thiel through their entirely voluntary association with him.

(If you support Trump, I would implore you to reconsider).

I understand where you're coming from. That said, how do you recommend we heal what's dividing people? Do we stop associating with people that don't share our beliefs? What level of association is acceptable? I know I don't have the answer, but I don't think increasing the separation between people is a good general solution. I think calling out in a constructive way behavior we think is problematic is useful. And maybe there's a distinction to be made between someone in Thiel's position and someone who isn't so prominent.

If I'm putting words in your mouth, I apologize. And please don't interpret my comment as supporting one side or the other. And there's a significant number of people on either side. There's a lot of vitriol on both sides that I hope we as a society can overcome.

No, I don't recommend that. I don't think we should work to de-normalize Republicans. I don't think we should ostracize Republicans who vote for Trump out of genuine concern over the direction of the Supreme Court, or because they believe abortion is murder. I don't think we should ostracize Trump supporters.

But I think there's an obvious, material difference between the kind of support a voter might give Trump --- casting a vote, wearing a pin, putting up a lawn sign --- and what Thiel did. Trump is so troubling the the Republican party that they had to put Scott Baio on stage at their convention. Trump's most important GOP surrogate is the discredited former mayor of New York City. Every living former GOP nominee refused to speak for Trump at the RNC. Every living GOP president refused to endorse them. Thiel, though, did exactly that. He got up on the most public stage imaginable and told the American people that Trump was the only honest candidate in the election.

Months later, after Trump had pivoted his campaign to a strategy that depends on white voters presumption that black votes are illegitimate and that the election is rigged, after more than ten women came out to say Trump had sexually assaulted them, Thiel wrote a $1.25MM check for Trump.

I can tolerate Republicans voting their conscience about the Supreme Court.

I will not tolerate the people in the crowds whooping and cheering Trump's claim that some women are too ugly to have been assaulted by Trump.

Similarly, I will not tolerate Peter Thiel, Rudolph Giuliani, or Chris Christie, or any of the rest of Trump's high council of enablers.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I was hoping more about how we might bridge the gaps between people of differing opinions, but I understand that might be a little too far afield from the original topic. I do think it's important, though, especially going forward after November 8. No one is going to be going away just because the election is over.

Personally, I think we can start by continuing the work HRC and Obama were doing at the beginning of this election to separate Trump from mainstream Republicanism. They've stopped doing that, now that they believe HRC's victory is a foregone conclusion. Now they're trying to tether the GOP to Trump to help downticket races. I think they're making a mistake. I also think that the country needs a loyal opposition, and a voice for limited government and humility in the state's role in regulating behavior and business. And I say this as a loyal Democrat.

But that's exactly what we're saying here: support for Trump is not normal support for the Republican party and its ostensible ideals. Trump is an authoritarian white nationalist and a con-artist. He's unfit to be counted alongside Thomas Dewey, Mitt Romney, or Barry Goldwater. He victimizes those in "his" party who feel compelled to support him. His enablers, the Giulianis and the Thiels, bear a special culpability in attempting to normalize Trump to the Republican party. And Thiel's supporters bear some culpability in trying to normalize Thiel.

> I also think that the country needs a loyal opposition

I've been thinking exactly the same thing for a while now. Maybe it's time for bumper stickers!

As I don't have anything meaningful to add right now, I'll sign off. Thank you for the thoughtful, civil discourse. I appreciate it.

> But I think there's an obvious, material difference between the kind of support a voter might give Trump --- casting a vote, wearing a pin, putting up a lawn sign --- and what Thiel did.

What's the material difference?

> He got up on the most public stage imaginable and told the American people that Trump was the only honest candidate in the election.

That's speaking in support of the candidate. Literally thousands of people do it every day. Many of them use this exact phrase. What's so exceptional with Thiel? I can't help but this the claimed exceptionality is not with what he did, but that he did it for Trump. And, maybe, also because what he did has potential to make a difference, unlike putting up a lawn sign. Is the only tolerable opposition an inefficient one?

> I will not tolerate the people in the crowds whooping and cheering Trump's claim that some women are too ugly to have been assaulted by Trump.

Such people, if they exist, would be despicable, but this has nothing to do with Thiel. Thiel never said something like that, as far as we know, and mentioning this as something that is similar to what Thiel did do - namely, supporting a candidate he prefers, which is the most normal thing in US politics - does not bear minimal standard of proper argument. You basically said "I won't tolerate these people who are bad and because of this Thiel is bad and has to be ostracized". It doesn't work this way.

Thiel isn't merely a supporter of Trump. There are, as many have pointed out on this thread, tens of millions of Trump supporters.

But they are not all the same: some of them support Trump because they cannot in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate (they are wrong in this instance, but they are wrong in good faith). Others --- hundreds of thousands of them --- support Trump because they are themselves white nationalists who see in Trump the hope that America can revert itself to the social mores of the late 1940s. Some people put up lawn signs. Some people donate millions of dollars to Trump. Some people refuse to disavow Trump, because to do so would be to spend political capital to thwart an outcome that is already unlikely to occur. Others get up on stage with Scott Baio to shout their support for Trump into microphones and cameras.

Along virtually every axis you can come up with, Thiel's support for Trump exceeds the norms of our politics and of civil debate. Thiel is not a typical Trump supporter. I do not need to stretch to make this argument: it is clear and obvious.

Sam Altman and Paul Graham should acknowledge this. I don't care what else they do; I don't care if they "fire" Thiel. But they have to at least pay consistent lip service to the things they claim to believe.

* Some of them support Trump because they believe

> Thiel's support for Trump exceeds the norms of our politics and of civil debate. Thiel is not a typical Trump supporter.

But is this really so? That Thiel has the means to donate one million dollars while others must settle for lawn signs shouldn't determine how much ire we direct his way. You seem to be saying that having preference for a candidate is one thing but advocating and encouraging other people to have a similar preference is beyond the pale. Yet one seems a logical and natural consequence of the other.

Also I'm a little suspicious of DHH's intentions in his tweets to Graham (later picked up by Pinboard). Not that it negates the point he's making but it appears to be a long-standing vendetta masquerading as sanctimony: https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=from%3Adhh+to%3Apaulg

This is going to be my last comment. Too much politics is bad for you ;) Thanks for the alternative POV.

Yes, I think Thiel's enabling of Trump is materially different than a normal voter's support of Trump.

I understand the concern people would have about DHH and Maciej's opposition to Paul Graham. But DHH and Maciej aren't the only people that have this concern. They happen in this instance to be right.

Thanks for the civil disagreement!

> Along virtually every axis you can come up with, Thiel's support for Trump exceeds the norms of our politics and of civil debate

I don't see any shred of evidence for this. Donating money for a preferred candidate is completely normal for "our politics". Moreover, many establishments and persons donate money to both parties and sometimes even for both candidates. It's not only within the boundaries of normal, it is dead in the center of it - it's one of the most common things people do to support the candidate. Making it as if he did some outrageous thing that nobody ever does is completely disingenuous. He did the most normal thing everybody does.

> But they have to at least pay consistent lip service to the things they claim to believe.

That wouldn't be freedom of speech and freedom of political association, per chance?

Freedom of speech and freedom of association are two things Donald Trump has been campaigning against. Overtly. He believes that libel laws should be "liberalized" so that it's easier to sue the New York Times for publishing information about him. Just this week, he argued to a whooping crowd that the women accusing him of sexual assault should themselves be imprisoned.

All this, of course, after he took to the stage of a Presidential debate to argue in public that his political opponent should be jailed --- not investigated, but jailed. That is his rallying cry: "lock her up".

We are not required to tolerate intolerance when it actively jeopardizes the fabric of our civil society. Particularly when a movement towards intolerance is progressing so fast that there's little time for its adherents to be educated in the gravity of what they're doing before intolerance itself wins.

> Freedom of speech and freedom of association are two things Donald Trump has been campaigning against.

So did Clinton. To the point she promised first thing she would do is try to reverse Supreme Court decision which confirmed that people can organize to criticize her. And unlike Trump, which has neither the knowledge (President doesn't make laws, for starters) nor expertise not sound mind to actually produce anything but hot air on the topic, I fully believe she can do it - she can find a judge who hates the First Amendment, she can put him or, even more probably, her on the Supreme Court, and she can hurt freedom of speech and freedom of association for decades to come.

And I must also remind that in the last scandal about freedom of association - namely, documented use of IRS powers for political purposes - nobody was seriously punished and no safeguards preventing it from happening in the future were instituted. Which means it will happen again. And history shows Clinton has absolutely no problem with (ab)using state power against her enemies.

> All this, of course, after he took to the stage of a Presidential debate to argue in public that his political opponent should be jailed --- not investigated, but jailed. That is his rallying cry: "lock her up".

While I oppose Trump on a very long list of points, and dislike him for even longer list of reasons, on this point he is completely right. If anybody else but Clinton or another high-ranking Democrat would do what she did - he would be in jail. Many were for less, and many still are. US government is highly intolerant to mishandling classified documents and trying to circumvent regulations, even for benign reasons, let alone for reasons of avoiding oversight. Government hates avoiding oversight. Unless it's some of the "special people" who's doing it.

Of course, election propaganda tries to present it as if Trump wants Clinton to be locked up for opposing him. Nope. She must be locked up for doing things every regular person - including me and you - would be locked up. Because right now we know for sure that there's one law for regular people and another law for top government officials. And it's not a country of laws that US is supposed to be, it's a banana republic stuff.

> We are not required to tolerate intolerance when it actively jeopardizes the fabric of our civil society.

I'm sorry, but I hear this bullshit every election - if a Republican gets elected, our society is ruined. Ruined I say! Everybody will be dead! US will be a nuclear wasteland!

I heard it for Bush, I heard it for McCain, I hear it for Romney, now I hear it for Trump. It's nothing but electoral bullshit.

Yes, Trump is a disgusting pig, a blowhard and a conman. No, he won't ruin our civil society. Not unless we first dismantle the safeguards that was built into the system - on which, btw, both Obama and Clinton are working vigorously, because those are the same safeguards that limit their powers. To be sure, Trump is no friend of the safeguards either - but he has much less chance of success on actually removing any of them, unless something huge - like 9/11 - happens. In which case Clinton would be probably even worse, as the press would attack Trump vigorously and would be (already is) very servile and docile towards Clinton.

This hysterical frenzy about ruining the society is impossible to take seriously, and I won't. Even less I would take it from the same people is completely silent in the face of a thousands of routine government abuses taking place literally every day (I don't mean you here, I don't know your history, I mean the press and the commentariat). Our society has a lot of warts, and a lot of problems, and still survives. It can survive Trump and not even break a sweat.

> Particularly when a movement towards intolerance is progressing so fast that there's little time for its adherents to be educated in the gravity of what they're doing before intolerance itself wins.

The mindset of "we're right, so we should not be bound by the rules" is the most dangerous mindset there ever was, bar none. If you think it's ok to suppress opposition because you're right and it's too important to let them oppose you - you are the problem. Maybe in one particular regard you would turn out to be right - but it never lasts and not playing by the rules always does.

As for implication that Trump supporters are mainly moved by racism - it is also an electoral canard. I could expand on this but it's already too long, so I'll just say that it's true that many racists do support Trump, but it's not the reason he won the Republican nomination, and way detached from the reason every single person I know that supports him and millions I don't support him.

"This bullshit" is an almost direct quote from _A Theory Of Justice_ (I think I altered the pronouns). You hear it regularly because it's one of the most important works of political philosophy in the modern American tradition.

Look, it's clear what you're missing here.

If you yourself support Trump, or believe that he's equivalent to Hillary Clinton, that's fine. (I mean, it's not "fine", and I implore you to reconsider, but that's as far as it goes).

But Paul Graham and Sam Altman do not agree with you. They have said, publicly and repeatedly, that Donald Trump is far more dangerous than an ordinary political candidate; that he's a dictator, a modern-day Mussolini, someone for whom we'd need to create a "resistance" were he to be elected.

The criticism animating this thread is that if Graham and Altman truly believe what they are saying, they cannot coherently continue to support one of Trump's more important surrogates and enablers.

You are welcome to disagree with Graham and Altman (and me, and most other people on HN) about this! I do not challenge your right to do so.

But please address the argument that's actually being made.