![racial slurs database racial slurs database](https://media.nbcbayarea.com/2019/09/217_asmgs_3296_ligetyrun1minute_nbc.jpg)
About how the individual relates to powerful entities, and what is the best relationship between the individual and the state/power for the future of humanity. But the Centralization vs Decentralization dimension seems like something he may be thinking about if I'm reading the tea leaves. Is every politician he supports going to follow that playbook directly? I wouldn't expect them to. Seasteading Institute), pushing back on the entrenched establishment, etc. This can show up in national politics as showing support for local nation ideals (as opposed to a more globalist perspective), limiting the scope/size of government, support for federalism, support for cryptocurrencies, support for individual rights/freedoms, support for testing new government models (i.e. I get the impression he is for Decentralization of governments/power at large. To share my version of a steelman for Thiel (I'll admit a lot of ignorance here, so anybody please correct me), it seems like there is a major throughline in a lot of what he does around Centralization vs Decentralization. As an example, I voted for Biden/Democrats, but if you were looking at what they say/do (particularly the most controversial things in the media) as the only evidence for my views, you wouldn't understand my positions very well. Sure, Trump was looney/incompetent/corrupt, and JD Vance/Blake Masters have said a few things that we can criticize, but I don't know if those pieces of evidence shed a light on Thiel's actual views. I'm still having trouble squaring what his views are from the description (not a demand for more rigor here, just an honest appraisal) here. I'll admit, when people use the terms "hard", "extreme", "alt" before a political direction, I don't really know what they're actually signifying in terms of substantive views. Thanks for sharing some personal context. So, from my foreign armchair, I just look at some stuff US politicians say and do (mostly Republicans for unclear reasons) and I'm like, nah dude, that's too extreme. I don't understand much about American politics, but from the little I know, if I was there, I'd be nothing close to a "leftist", but more like a pro-capitalist "conservative", so I'm not really looking at this stuff from a biased lens. I tried my best to use non-biased political resources (Reuters and Politico have a great rep on my end). Now, I'm not saying that everything about them is bad (everyone has flaws). You can check his website and see policy ideals similar to Masters'. Vance also has some unique ideas, such as promoting claims that Trump lost the election because of voter fraud or suggesting that Biden was intentionally allowing fentanyl to flood the US because it mainly affected the Republican base. Īlso, JD Vance (backed by $10 million+ of Thiel's money ).
![racial slurs database racial slurs database](http://img.youtube.com/vi/v61VFGVIwc8/0.jpg)
Masters has some unique ideas, such as opposing Roe vs Wade (abortion rights) and expanding gun rights (in his words, "Eliminating or restructuring the ATF, Repealing the National Firearms Act, and Opposing every kind of federal firearms database or gun registry"). His, protégé, Blake Masters, is running for the Arizona Senate position (backed by $10 million+ of Thiel's donations ). The first is Donald Trump, which I don't think I need to expatiate following those riots (that was widely used to mock the USA) globally. Thiel is funding a new breed of politicians with "hard-right" ideals. First of all, I'll repeat that I'm not an American and neither an expert on (presumably) your country's politics, so this is just my armchair observation.