Is there anything to be said for ascribing views to someone who hasn’t claimed them? Because I’m rather a bit confused as to how Peter Thiel became a discriminatory misogynist by extension. This also goes for the people who will vote for Trump. What I recall Thiel saying rather pointedly, was that he wants to support a candidate who will change Washington. Not that he’s voting for misogynistic policies or discriminatory policies. His primary focus was on changing the gridlock. How is it reasonable to assume that because he’s sticking to that primary goal, he supports everything else the candidate has said in a similar fashion? Are you assuming that those voting for Clinton are isolationists, against free trade, or against affordable medication? Are they ascribed that litany of traits because Clinton is against trade policies, Middle East intervention, and is supported by big pharma? Or do you accept their claims that they are pro-women, pro-immigrant, pro/against whatever they choose for themselves? Is there a double standard applied here?
Why would we bother to have dozens of debates if there weren’t dozens of issues that go into choosing a candidate. Who are you or anyone to assume that you know why someone is voting for a candidate, and to supplant the reasons they give for their vote with your own?