HPE CEO Meg Whitman endorses Hillary Clinton, dumps on Trump Hewlett Packard Enterprise CEO Meg Whitman has endorsed Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States. Whitman penned a statement on Facebook in which she unloaded on Trump. “As a proud Republican, casting my vote for President has usually been a simple matter,” she opens, before saying “To vote Republican out of …
Have you checked American politics lately? They are all bought. Trump isn't bought, not so far, and look what he has done as a free agent: go bankrupt, build Ponzi schemes, not to mention Trump U. Hillary Clinton has been labelled evil and a liar and corrupt, but what I see is a career politician, a little too hawkish for my taste, who has done a reasonably good job, considering, and at least knows how not to insult people.
the US technology community usually comes out mostly pro-Democrat
This isn't true: John Chambers is a notable Republican. There are some headline Democrats in Silicon Valley but, like the banks, they donate heavily to both parties so that they can best influence legislation. And, historically at least, HP largely kept out of politics. Fiorina was a disastrous aberration, but also an outsider.
But nearly all CEOs are free-traders which is why it's not so surprising to see them being sceptical about Trump. What is perhaps noteworthy is the vehemence with which they've come out, more or less coordinated against Trump. Warren Buffet was particularly scathing and when it comes to willy-waving about how to make money, he has Trump (inherited most of his money, hasn't made much himself) hands down.
Trump “lacks both the policy depth and sound judgment required as President”
At least Trump is painfully transparent, he's a clearly a buffoon in Boris Johnson mold. Clinton meanwhile is altogether more insidious, a traditional politician and a lying, two-faced weasel you wouldn't trust to look after a bag of dog turds! That's why so many of the "Good and Great" are backing Clinton, they know their nasty schemes to keep the "One Percenters" at the top of the pile will be kept on track, Trump can't be trusted to keep his mouth shut for 2 mins, he's a liability. Trump speaks his mind, they might all agree but they can't be seen to agree in public and that's would happen with Trump in charge.
Funny really, looks like the American people are desperately attempting to get away from the same old career criminals, and having every under handed trick thrown at them.
Trump & Bernie were both outsiders, both had their own parties do everything to stop them from gathering momentum, only to totally fail in the case of Trump and was stolen away from Bernie.
And now at a point where Hillary should by all rights, if not be sat in a jail cell should at the very least be prevented from running in any sort of office, with scandal after scandal being swept under the carpet (and more yet to come).
Instead we have almost ALL mainstream media denouncing Trump as the anti-Christ, a traitor (really funny considering what the Clinton's have been up to) racist, bigot etc ad nauseam..
'Tweek ' poll results to give Hilary 'the lead', and now to the point where they need their fellow criminals from the 'other side' to also denounce him.. and yet..
The American people are STILL flocking to Trump in droves.
It seems that the 'career politicians' dont seem to understand that people around the world not just in America ,are finally getting fed up with them feeding us shit only for them to tell us its good for us..
And now at a point where Hillary should by all rights, if not be sat in a jail cell
For which particular crime?
Meanwhile the lawsuits against Trump over his "university" continue to mount up and could lead to a fraud investigation. By the way, where are those tax receipts?
Neither Sanders nor Trump were ever really outsiders, they just played that card.
ooFie: "almost ALL mainstream media denouncing Trump as the anti-Christ"
I have read plenty of mainstream media about Trump, but this was the first time I heard he was the anti-christ. I tried a web search for "Trump anti-christ" and found plenty of results. I did not recognise any of the sites, and lacking significant knowledge or interest in religion I had difficulty separating sincerity from satire.
As I was clearly out of my depth, I looked for the opinion of an expert. A web search for "Trump pope" showed lots of sites I recognised. No mention of anti-christ so far, but here is what Pope Francis said about Donald:
"A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian."
Perhaps you could point out a mainstream media site that claims Trump is the anti-christ?
And now at a point where Hillary should by all rights, if not be sat in a jail cell should at the very least be prevented from running in any sort of office, with scandal after scandal being swept under the carpet (and more yet to come).
I won't argue that Hillary has at times, skated pretty close to the edge.
But what "crimes" would you have her in jail for? However badly you want to see her in jail, we have this thing called "presumption of innocence", and we require a trial and a gulity verdict before we put people in jail in this country. To my knowledge, that hasn't happened yet.
Emails? "W" deleted ALL his emails on his way out of office, and he, Cheney and Karl Rove were caught using RNC email addresses for stuff they wanted to keep "off the records"
Benghazi? Give me a break. Four people died, but what do you want the Sec of State to do about it? It's the middle east, people die there all the time. Look up USS Liberty. Nobody went to jail for THAT, and we're still sending arms and money to the bastards that did it.
Whitewater? A dodgy real estate deal? Really? Aside from the fact that the statue of limitations has probably expired, an exhaustive investigation while Bill was president failed to find anything criminal in his actions.. And you want to try again?
Hillary's a typical politician. Lots of dirty laundry. But she's also smart and experienced. She'll probably make an adequate president. Trump is ignorant, cocky and divisive. Not good qualities for a president. I'll take Hillary, with all her faults, thank you.
Congress tends to do a pretty good job of stopping all policies. President can do quite a bit with respect to foreign policy and setting the tone of the nation. I think everyone knows who the more level headed one is. Kind of surprised that the Republican's aren't getting behind Johnson. He would seem to be a better fit in general.
Electoral College only applys to a fixed combination of States. So while it's true that the majority of votes are essentially worthless. By proxy of being a low level State say Alaska with only 3 Votes to give. Will likely be totally, and utterly ignored by such other States, like California, (55), and Texas (34) which are pretty much must win States if you want to have prayer at winning.
Ms. Clinton has made a number of blunders, but as far as criminality goes: Republicans have spent something like $20 million on multiple investigations into Behghazi, and no evidence damning Clinton has come to light. About $80 million was spent on Whitewater, with no evidence of illegal real estate deals by the Clintons coming to light. The email server issue was a blunder, but again: no criminal charges are warranted -- according to the FBI itself. (The FBI and the US Attorney General have a duty to follow laws and legal precedent. Political party propaganda has no such constraint.)
A criminal is someone who has been convicted of a crime in a court of law. People who call either Clinton a criminal are blowing propaganda our their arses, my friends.
Here's a question: would you be tough enough to stand up to enemies who spend a hundred million dollars (of taxpayer money) putting your life under a very critical, very biased microscope? Would you be tough enough to stay working in the public sector for decades while conservative attack dogs (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al) label you a criminal at every opportunity?
Hillary Clinton was a major player in getting $21 billion to redevelop the World Trade Center site after the 9/11 attacks. She took a lead role in investigating the health issues faced by 9/11 responders. She brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas -- not that it would last, but what can you do but try? She was instrumental in passing the State Children's Health Insurance program (CHIP), providing health insurance to millions of children in lower-income families. And so on.
Hillary Clinton has stayed in there -- in the Obama administration and in the Senate -- despite the constant vilification, despite the conservative attack dogs, despite the name-calling and vitriolic propaganda. And she has kept trying to make a positive difference. Like her policies or lump them, she has more guts than I, more than you, and more staying power than damned near any US politician on either side of the aisle.
No, she would not be my first pick for a presidential candidate. But Whitman is right: compared to Trump, she is several orders of magnitude better.
Golly, thanks for reading. Now get going and start the downvotes!
well, Meg Whitman lost my respect. OK I knew she was a 'RINO' and she lost HUGE against Jerry Brown (2nd time around Brown) for gov of Cali-fornicate-you [probably because she's a RINO], but she at least had SOME respect from me, until now.
But I think I know why she did it: CORPORATE WELFARE. Won't get any with Trump. WILL get PLENTY with Mrs. Clinton. So is it in HP's "best interest" she has done this? Or her own?
Limbaugh thinks she'll only strengthen support for Trump by doing this. I wouldn't be surprised.
There are a lot of republicans who are very unhappy with Trump, and getting unhappier by the day as he drools out more crazy talk. But they can't get past their hatred for Clinton, and feel they have no choice but to support him. Hearing people like Whitman and that retiring republican congressman say they are voting for Clinton because they can't stomach Trump changes nothing. The Clinton hating republicans still hate her, and still feel they must support Trump.
I really wish some of these "I have decided I cannot support Trump" republicans would come out in favor of Gary Johnson, or some other third party. The idea that "a vote for a third party is vote for <insert whoever you want to make sure doesn't become president?" is stupid. First all, as a resident of California, Whitman's individual vote doesn't matter anyway - Hillary will carry that state. Likewise, Texas will be carried by Trump (if not, you can pretty much assume he will have lost just about every state) So even if you subscribe to that "wasted vote" scenario it shouldn't matter.
Second of all, if democrats tell you a third party vote is a vote for Trump, and republicans tell you a third party vote is a vote for Clinton, that should be a hint something is awry with their logic.
So even if she was in a swing state, her voting third party doesn't count as a "vote for Trump" just because it isn't being cast for Hillary. There are enough people who don't like either candidate that if they voted third party things could get interesting. Sure, some "never Hillary" Berners who would never consider Trump will vote Green, some "never Trump" republicans who would never consider Hillary will vote Johnson, and maybe the religious right who can't stomach either Trump, Hillary, Johnson or Stein will find yet another third party candidate they can support, or write in Ted Cruz's name.
I wonder what the effect would be if the total vote count for all third party candidates combined exceeded the votes for Trump or for Hillary? Even if that third party vote was split up enough that few if any delegates were received, it would sure put a scare in the republican and democrat parties! And seeing for example 20% for Johnson and 10% for Stein would get a lot more people considering whether they really are a "democrat" or a "republican" even if they stuck by their party's nominee this time around.
"The idea that "a vote for a third party is vote for <insert whoever you want to make sure doesn't become president?>" is stupid."
Amen!
The major fallacy of that argument is that people that vote third party are doing so because they don't want either the Rep or Dem choice as president.
Voting for one or the other because they're the "best" choice instead of voting third party just still puts "whoever you want to make sure doesn't become president" in Office, and tells the powers that be to keep on doing whatever they want to, no need to change.
Voting third party is not futile or a wasted vote, it's a message for the two major parties to either start listening, or get relegated to history.
A quick history lesson:
In 1854, the two main American parties were the the Democrats and the Whigs, and neither was listening to the public.
So a third party came along, acted on what people wanted, and by 1860, their candidate was the American President.
The party's name? The Republicans. The president? Lincoln.
Now where would They be today if people hadn't wasted their vote on a third party candidate, hmm?
The only wasted vote is one cast for a candidate you don't really endorse because they tell you there's "no choice".
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
