Ton Of Tech Industry Leaders Say Trump Would Be A Complete Disaster For Innovation
from the going-beyond-politics dept
In any Presidential campaign, there are always going to be partisan folks who side with one candidate or another. And they may campaign for the candidate they like. But, obviously, the Donald Trump phenomenon is a bit different this year. Even so, it's still pretty surprising to see a ton of big names in the tech space send an open letter to Trump insisting that he would be an absolute disaster for innovation and the tech industry. They're not arguing on the usual partisan issues here, but rather the fact that Trump's general zero-sum outlook on the world doesn't recognize how innovation works:Trump would be a disaster for innovation. His vision stands against the open exchange of ideas, free movement of people, and productive engagement with the outside world that is critical to our economy — and that provide the foundation for innovation and growth.This is a unique presidential campaign. And, as we've noted, Hillary Clinton's tech platform is not great either. But, at the very least, her platform's problem is that it's just a bunch of vague pronouncements designed for people to read into them what they will.
Let’s start with the human talent that drives innovation forward. We believe that America’s diversity is our strength. Great ideas come from all parts of society, and we should champion that broad-based creative potential. We also believe that progressive immigration policies help us attract and retain some of the brightest minds on earth — scientists, entrepreneurs, and creators. In fact, 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. Donald Trump, meanwhile, traffics in ethnic and racial stereotypes, repeatedly insults women, and is openly hostile to immigration. He has promised a wall, mass deportations, and profiling.
We also believe in the free and open exchange of ideas, including over the Internet, as a seed from which innovation springs. Donald Trump proposes “shutting down” parts of the Internet as a security strategy — demonstrating both poor judgment and ignorance about how technology works. His penchant to censor extends to revoking press credentials and threatening to punish media platforms that criticize him.
The list of signatories on this letter is around 145 and there are some key names in the tech and policy world including Evan Williams (founder of Blogger, Twitter and Medium), Vint Cerf (basically invented the internet), Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia), Steve Wozniak (you know who he is) and more. There are also a ton of well known venture capitalists on the list and lots and lots of other entrepreneurial names that are well known inside Silicon Valley. This is a pretty huge list of people putting their name to a statement a lot stronger than one you'd normally see during a campaign season.
Silicon Valley sort of has the reputation for more or less trying to ignore government. And while that's less true today than in the past, the one thing that does make Silicon Valley rise up is politicians looking to be doing something really stupid that's likely to harm innovation. And it appears that they see Donald Trump as just that kind of threat.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: donald trump, entrepreneurs, innovation, investors, politics, silicon valley, vcs
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Not a Trump supporter, but...
I notice that the clear subtext to these "tech industry leaders" is that a Trump presidency might obstruct the flow of cheap H1B labor from overseas.Obviously, if you make your living (or your obscene fortune) from exploiting the legal system in this way, you're going to insist that you're doing nothing wrong and this is a very, very good thing for America (or at least your microscopic corner of it).
But you'd still be lying.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Translation...
I do not like Trump as a choice either, but a bunch of Politician buyers will not be swaying my opinion. In fact they might only be able to encourage me to vote for this clown by acting like he is some how worse than the corruption called Hillary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Translation...
Is it any wonder there are people who don't want him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Translation...
Yea, the youth of this nation are without Wisdom and only vote in the very thing they claim to hate. They hate and attack the Constitution at every turn, spitting their hate & bigotry against anyone that dares speak differently from them.
Yesterdays oppressed are the oppressors of tomorrow, yet they maintain grip over the crown of the abused out of fear that some may recognize the truth of matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Translation...
While Trump seems like the most untainted politician around and the only one who dares speak his mind, you would need to look at the packages he is putting together to guide his choices to understand what he is about. Right now the politics he is proclaiming and the advisers he is hiring or recommending seems hard to swallow for many people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Translation...
The key is that we currently can only prove that Hillary is more so. We can only judge by what we know. You appear to be more than willing to judge based on what you do not know. I question how wise decisions are possible under those circumstances.
And no matter which person gets in... Hillary or Trump, both have plenty of shit that will be hard for many people to swallow.
My point is why are we fighting over what appears to be two piles of shit where one is at least clearly stacked higher than the other. I guess the only difference is that the bigger pile of shit smells better?
Besides the biggest problem is Congress, not which president we can put into office. But no, people refuse to clean up their local politics. Instead they foolishly wait for a King to rule over them they can love. This is destroying America and allowing several hundred corrupt politicians laugh and dine at our expense.
It is better to be disruptive as a signal to the politicians that we do not care to tolerate this farce much longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Translation...
But for the sake of argument, let's pretend he isn't and has never been influenced, and that he hasn't bought influence. How radically awful does one need to be that your definition of corruption ceases to play the primary and by far most important criterion? Does it matter so much where bad behavior, ideas, and policy originate and come into play?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Translation...
I have no doubt that Trump is corrupt. But there is more than one level of that corruption. To compound this, I would consider Trump more of a corrupter not a corruptee.
Trumps best value is the stab in the eye of the parties. I was really hoping he was going to be thrown out by the Repukes, but they got scared and "Kept the Party together".
The Parties come first, they come before nation, they come before Family, they come before LIFE! Think about that and understand how terrible any candidate signed up for a party is. We truly vote for the lesser of two evils.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Translation...
There are other reasons than his awful business practices to not want Trump in the Oval Office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Translation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Translation...
Uh. None of the people who signed onto this could even remotely be described as "politician buyers." Most of them tend to stay far away from politics.
Get your conspiracy theories somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Translation...
were it only the truth...
Currency does not always come in the form or fashion you regular peasants may recognize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Translation...
PS: Just because someone attacks one candidate's position does not mean they support the other. The world isn't black and white.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Translation...
It must make it true, that guy is a troll!!!!
Mike's claim is wrong, and smacks of a juvenile mind. He should know very well that they do not need to publicly or directly participate in Politics to trade political currency. In fact the very appearance of non-involvement should cause concern that they are potentially large shadow players.
Judge all by the fruits of their labors. The vast majority of Tech Companies are ALREADY in bed with the government. The idea that they even have the "option" to not participate in politics is not the remarks of a wise man. Especially one that works in the news industry.
More action and activity occurs in the shadows than will ever be in the light. Inch by Inch and Step by Step, they work to gird themselves against the peasants and work to establish and strengthen their sovereignty in trade deals, patents, copyright, and trademarks. Try to cross them... the backlash will be worse than if you murdered someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Translation...
It must make it true, that guy is a troll!!!!"
"Mike's claim is wrong, and smacks of a juvenile mind."
Need I quote more to drive the point home harder?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Translation...
Ooh, satin, shiny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Translation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Translation...
Except when they dont. You forgot to mention tinfoil hats and mom's basement Michael. C'mon you can go much lower than that.
Google some of the names and companies on that list with campaign contributions.
As for their personal names some contribute "small" amounts 500 in one case to Hillary. So to say they "stay far away from politics" is not backed by what I have found. In addition:
Irwin Jacobs, Founding Chairman/CEO Emeritus, Qualcomm Inc
Paul Jacobs, Executive Chairman, Qualcomm Inc
Like they didnt pay off... er I mean "contribute" to politicians during their tenure in the at Qualcomm for Qualcomm?
And ya know... Sun Micro systems never paid... er contributed to politicians while Vinod Khosla was there.
David Grain gave 22,000 this year, 50k last election cycle.
And surely Capital ventures tends to stay far away from politics
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Area-tech-workers-defy-political-categories-7 388933.php
Oopsies.
But I guess these are all "Conspiracy theories" right Michael?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Translation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Translation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's one simple solution to the Trump problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's one simple solution to the Trump problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There's one simple solution to the Trump problem
Certainly I do. The whole point of the Chess was that war would be unnecessary if we could directly attack the bad actors. We fight war because these people resist their deposition with all their might, often including armies.
I doubt that Darkhog is the only one with regicidal ideation, and the FBI, were they smart, would be looking for ones not proclaiming it should be done, but considering how it will or must be done.
We'd need to get them both before the election anyway. If one were eliminated it would only spoil the election for the other and a devil would still be on the throne.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a Trump supporter, but...
Obviously, if you make your living (or your obscene fortune) from exploiting the legal system in this way, you're going to insist that you're doing nothing wrong and this is a very, very good thing for America (or at least your microscopic corner of it).
But you'd still be lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a Trump supporter, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a Trump supporter, but...
What they DO want is to gather so much wealth and/or power that they can stand as tyrants over other men. For people like this... the Trumps, the Clintons, the Bushes, the Bezos, Soros, the Ma's... There is nothing on this earth that may fill the holes in their hearts and souls, but they will try to fill it anyways. They will try to fill it with money, power, and eventually human blood or suffering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not a Trump supporter, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a Trump supporter, but...
-and I say that as someone who does in fact believe in the existence of a God.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a Trump supporter, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a Trump supporter, but...
YOU are a religious NUT CASE too!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a Trump supporter, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a Trump supporter, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not a Trump supporter, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a Trump supporter, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a Trump supporter, but...
Your definition of "cheap H1B labor from overseas" is a bit skewed. The median salary for H-1B workers in the top five tech companies is well over 100k/year. I wouldn't classify that as "cheap labor" in any industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a Trump supporter, but...
https://techcrunch.com/2015/03/29/how-google-facebook-and-others-pay-their-h-1b-employees/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nether canidate is worth a pile of beans
Trump is clueless.
Both will try to stifle the first/4th and any other constitutional right we have.
There is no good choice, other then dropping a small nuke on congress/white house. That would be a waste of good real estate though. Once again, no good choice.
Sigh, maybe we need a revolution to re-instate the constitution/Bill of Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nether canidate is worth a pile of beans
How about a pair of popular and successful two-term governors?
Both of whom are neither corrupt nor insane.
They're not ideal, but compared to Clinton and Trump, the choice seems pretty clear to me.
https://www.johnsonweld.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nether canidate is worth a pile of beans
Of course, I don't really know whether they would pull an Obama as soon as they took office and reverted their positions by 180 degrees, but at least their positions aren't fascist and mercantilist crap from the get-go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nether canidate is worth a pile of beans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The standards are so low for Presidents -- we would be better off electing a random American via lottery.
The government system is totally broken -- if Trump just shakes up the status quo... it will be a big improvement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a very tough time being a bigger disaster
Supposedly Einstein said "insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result".
How about we try something new?
https://www.johnsonweld.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: a very tough time being a bigger disaster
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a very tough time being a bigger disaster
That's enough to get my vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Johnsonweld
People around here should be old enough to remember Ross Perot, and he made as big a dent in the election as a third party could hope. And he still didn't get elected.
That was the very threat Trump was making in the Republican Primary Debates: If not nominated, he'd run as independent and spoil the election for the GOP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Johnsonweld
> by the basic law of averages that all he can ever hope to
> be is a spoiler for whoever's (alleged) platform is closest
> to his.
In this case does it matter?
Considering their personalities, I think voting for Trump or Clinton is throwing away your vote too.
I'm at a point where I say screw it, if I'm going to throw away my vote, I'm going to throw it at someone who's not a sociopath. At least I'll sleep better knowing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Johnsonweld
So you are refraining from voting this election. Good to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Johnsonweld
OMG you can't vote for the one you want unless they are going to win!!!
You sound like that blusterous tard called Rush. Rush and everyone else that mutters this bullshit only damages the nation.
It is deadly important that we vote for whom we WANT, not whom we think can make it in! If we do this then guess what, candidates that mix better with all of the voters are more likely to come around next cycle. And if they do not, then the party fails again... which is what should happen.
Idiots like you are putting party before everything else and that is more of a problem than losing an election!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Johnsonweld
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Electing a random person by lottery is something I hear more and more often! And it may have some merit if you look at ancient Greece.
When that is said, you have to look at what Trump is setting up to guide the country to see where he will be going in his presidency. And that is a very extreme bunch he is recommending. As much as he may shake up Washington, he is also able to do quite a lot of damage as president.
Choosing him as a candidate for presidency is sending a clear message, but to actually elect him as president is a completely different story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean the the last 5 - Reagan was a disaster too.
Carter was actually OK but very very unlucky.
Before that I think you have to go back to FDR.
Having said that - as a Brit - I have to admit that our last really good Prime Minister was Henry Campbell-Bannerman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Eisenhower was the last President who was both decent and competent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A bigger disaster than recent presidents.
George W. Bush's administration was magnificent in its ability to lay waste to the foundations of the US. That should serve as an example of what a president like Trump -- one easily manipulated by advisors and dark influences (that is, those hidden from public) -- can do.
Already our system is like a caterpillar teeming with wasp larvae, no longer serving its original function but as a food source for countless parasitical interests. It would be a miraculous reformation that could ever get it back on track.
More likely we are destined to dissolution and revolution, even if it takes the nation a few centuries to die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're probably right, although I think Winston Churchill was quite good -- but only in wartime. He was terrible otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know, but I do know that Hillary would be worse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't know, but I do know that Hillary would be worse
He didn't start it, whatever it was. Bush Jr. started it. Obama is doing exactly the same as Bush Jr., only worse.
Hell, Obama and Bush Jr. are making Bush Senior, Clinton and Reagan look good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bush and Obama were more thoroughly owned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ftfy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Johnson/Weld
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Johnson/Weld
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Johnson/Weld
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Johnson/Weld
If everyone thinks they don't have a chance, and so don't vote for them, they don't have a chance.
If people vote for who they really prefer, regardless of whether they have "a chance" or not - then they DO have a chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OTOH, Hillary is quite the miscreant. Biliary seem to have enriched themselves rather incredibly. Another wretch who has slithered her way around immoral and criminal acts. Her disdain for the application of the law to her behavior is an exemplar of sociopaths.
I will vote for Hillary, not because I have any appreciation for the woman, but rather because she obviously prepares her ploys in advance, and they are thought out. Trump acts and then reacts. No apparent thought involved. No perception of consequences, just the exercise of power by making others suffer.
I wish that there was someone worthy of being president. It is difficult to believe that in a nation of some 315 million that these are the best available. Makes me nauseous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Choosing either is a fools test. Whether you vote for a demon or an imp, you still chose evil.
All Nations get the Governments they deserve!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Governments they deserve!
We figured out after centuries that that was bullshit, so we tried out this system.
It's still buggy. For one, first-past-the-post reduces the system to a two party system, so most people are poorly represented.
Secondly, people often don't vote according to their best interests, because they're not logical creatures.
So in fact, our system is only slightly better than the one that it replaced. And since those in power are served by it, they won't seek to reform it.
Something, something, tree of liberty something patriots and tyrants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Governments they deserve!
We figured out after centuries that that was bullshit, so we tried out this system.
Actually we figured this out much earlier than you seem to think. The hereditary
Think Greek democracy and the Roman republic.
In fact even the Roman Imperial system was rarely hereditary.
The so called "five good emperors" (Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius) were appointed by a mechanism where each Emperor selected an heir who was NOT a relative.
The Buddhists of Tibet have a similar system for choosing the next Lama (although the Chinese have been trying to mess it up lately).
Plus of course Jesus made some good remarks about leadership when he said " You know that the rulers of the unbelieverst lord it over them and their superiors act like tyrants over them. That’s not the way it should be among you. Instead, whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Governments they deserve!
Anything wise that Jesus said has been spoiled by other, sometimes contradictory passages that usurpers cling to to control the religious dialog. This, I suspect, is why contemporary Christianity is more evidently about suppressing sex than say Blessed are the peacemakers.
It's always easy to find a biblical scholar who will provide religious justification for your war, for a small fee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Governments they deserve!
Remember the recent contretemps in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. -- Romans 13
I've been over this before; if we were supposed to blindly obey all authority because of this verse, Christians would have gone back to pagan worship. They were commanded to, after all.
The intent behind this verse is to maintain public order; "No rebellions for you!"
Here's the fun part: since we're in a democracy, we the people are theoretically collectively in charge, with our representatives as servants to do our will. The trouble is, most of us have forgotten that. The authority in this case is not of the government but of the laws of the land via the ultimate authority, the Constitution.
Therefore we have every right to criticise those servants of ours who don't do their job properly — and a responsibility to send them packing when the next election rolls around.
Everyone who advocates for violent rebellion seems to have sod all planned for the aftermath. THAT is why it's such a bad idea. Better to understand that politics is a popularity contest and leverage that to get your candidate of choice in. It's harder work than running around shooting at people but better for us all in the long run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blind obedience and the meaning of Romans 13
The problem with scripture that requires interpretation is that even nine experienced jurists are unable to come to consistent conclusions as to what a given passage means, hence the ~40,000 schisms of Christian faith.
(From a generic philosophical perspective, this is not a problem at all since we are meant to opine and occasionally disagree. No complex system of rules can exist without paradox. The problem comes when we decide These rules are sacred! but we can't agree on what the rules mean. Wars have dragged on and on triggered by such disagreements.)
Regardless, there's a lot of Divine Right of Kings in the New Testament, and according to Romans 13, the Colonists were probably wrong to declare independence in the first place and rebel, but George and parliament were wrong to treat the colonies like crap as well.
Christian society depends a heck of a lot on everyone playing along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blind obedience and the meaning of Romans 13
The moment you go from the authority of the Church to sola scriptura you get fragmentation like this. (Although it is also true that the moment you centralise the authority of the church in a single man you are in trouble too.)
Only protestantism is fragmented like this - and it is most fragmented in the US to which we europeans dispatched all our religious nutcases int he 17th century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Governments they deserve!
It should never be like that - if they actually looked and what Jesus did - Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery but drove out the money changers in the temple with a whip!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Governments they deserve!
Our system is far superior to the one it replace, it's just that we citizens have abdicated our responsibilities.
We sit by and provide a helping hand every time the government abuses us. As Juror's we could strike down even a Presidents power with Nullification.
THIS IS WHAT MAKES OUR SYSTEM GREAT!
Sadly we have become ignorant of these facts and allow Judge, Prosecutor, and Lawyer to lie to us and make us believe we have very little power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Governments they deserve!
But groups will assuredly lean towards bigotry and xenophobia and eating more Doritos.
The dialogue of our elections is demagogic and aggressive because that is what works to get votes and approval. If the human animal could coordinate on its own to engage in reasonable action, our elections would look very differently.
So blaming the people is useless. They are what they are. In creating a nation, you either fight it, or work with it.
And there are changes we could make that we know would make a difference, and we don't make those changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Governments they deserve!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Governments they deserve!
I disagree with that tenet. People are logical. We are just blind to our own logic. Like any other blind system, we can make indirect observations, which tend to get clearer at microscopic and macroscopic levels.
Our greatest weakness is that we so easily concede ourselves to assumption. That we are an unreasoned mob is an assumption. That there aren't alternatives to subjugation to the demopublican alliance is an assumption.
I for one, will henceforth be working ONLY within third parties. I will vote. And when the demopublicans are the only party on the ticket, I will vote in whatever fashion is most destructive to them.
I will not assume that alternatives don't exist. I will not assume that I cannot advance those alteratives to my own benefit. I do not need to assume that the demopublican alliance is corrupt and conspiring with one another. They have proven that beyond a reasonable doubt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"People are logical."
People don't vote according to their best interests, because they often don't even know what their best interests are.
And people will often vote out of a sense loyalty (say, based on how their family or minister or friends vote) rather than who will act according to their own needs.
And people will often vote based on vanity attributes (the better-looking or easier name to pronounce) or rumors (Obama is a Kenyan Islamic terrorist) than what their own candidate will do for them.
And people will fixate on emotionally charged issues that have little effect (Abortion, Terrorism, Rampage Killers, Obamacare Death Panels) rather than matters that are actually killing them (lead in the water, disappearing jobs, failing medical access, law enforcement overreach).
And our candidates have no impetus to act on their own platform once in office, case in point George W. Bush who went from a compassionate conservative to a hard-line neo-con within hours of his inauguration, or Obama who went from Mr. Hope and Change to Opacity and Status Quo and the CIA Drone Strike program massacring civilians continuously (Don't look at the bodies too closely) in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
And people are sometimes circumvented entirely since their states have been gerrymandered to Hell, the control of which is securely in the hands of the incumbent parties.
You obviously have different standards than I do for what counts as a logical creature. We still pretend we are capable of logical thought continuously, when in reality even our scientists and engineers have to use processes to disengage emotional biases and can still only logic in short bursts. (It's why we do math on paper, so that we can check to see how each logical conclusion follows directly from the last.) The reason that companies use dissuasive customer service techniques and lengthy, dry, obtuse contracts is that they work in ensnaring the customer into committing more than he can rationalize. We're not only biased, but we live in a society that actively uses those biases to exploit us.
And one of the theaters in which the war of exploiting the people is waged is our election system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The best available.
Very different jobs, both of those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too bad the alternative is also a disaster ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TFTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children.
It does not appear anyone is willing to be anything other than deceptive with their words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But seriously, I'm not huge fan of Hillary, but she's actually competent to do the job. You may as well make Ryan Seacrest president if you're going to vote for Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Duke vs. Edwin Edwards redoux?
Fear and disgust are the greatest motivators of all, and this presidential election will no doubt be won by the side that can out-fear and out-disgust the other in the minds of the voters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something fishy here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Hillary really on the same level as Trump?
Looking from a distance I wonder how anybody can say that Hillary is anywhere close to being as bad as Trump is. Sure, I don't like her and thinking about her the words "Power hungry" are my first association.
However, she is practically political royalty. So she knows the system, has worked within the system and will follow the system. Which means that most likely her presidency will be boring and average. Kind of like Obama's presidency was boring and average despite the high expectations he managed to whip up.
Trump? Trump is a spoiled child that surrounds himself with flatterers and yes-men. He's what happens to people when your whole life everybody tells you you're the second coming of Christ: You start to believe it.
I must say though that if it wasn't so scary, it would be very entertaining to see a Trump presidency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Hillary really on the same level as Trump?
The trick here is to see if Mister Trump also belongs to the Family. One suspects that he does, so even though publicly they are no opposite sides, they share the same bed and breakfast table (figuratively speaking). I'm pretty certain tat Mistress Clinton would not physically share the bed as Mister Trump (but I could be wrong).
Unfortunately, the technical support for Johnson-Weld demonstrate that they are technological imbeciles, since the website is completely blank if javascript is turned off in ones browser.
Whether they would be any better requires one to check their credentials and see if they are also part of the Family. If they are, then they would be no better. If they are not, then this may be the way to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better ignorance than ignorance AND malice.
You can engineer around one jackass relatively easily. Not so much when they show up in numbers. And the list is not as impressive as it once was. The Woz has shilled for G.M. for christs sake.
Everything about the campaign against Bernie was division oriented and designed to belittle people with progressive views. That is a reliable indicator of how she would operate as POTUS. Technical people threaten her leverage, and you can expect the response to that threat to be social derision in some form.
So sorry Vint, Woz, et. al. You guys won't be on the shit end of the stick for this one. You'll forgive me if I suggest that risking being subject to an insane person is preferable to being subject to someone who clearly has a simmering rage for people like us. Rhetoric aside, we have ALL met people like this in the industry. Everything they do causes mayhem. And yep, if you don't have to clean up after them they are quite charming, and they always seem to be on the right side.
Right up until you start calculating O.T. for their "brillant" plans that invariably generate a loss for the organization. My guess is you guys got invited to stay at the Whitehouse. That is how the Clintons suckered endorsements out of people the last time around.
Pretty cheap as the standard for cool kids clubs goes. Certainly cheaper than a cross and some nails. Which is what the working class technicians can expect from HRC if she becomes POTUS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dangerous BS
True the offshore tech industry that will hurt when Trump takes office. However, he will bring opportunity and innovation back to the tech industry in America.
With Clinton press "2" for English and pray that you can understand them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dangerous BS
Oh, right, because it's been all of 5 minutes since the UK referendum and nothing has begun to happen. Try here for a more realistic look: http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/07/14/everything-you-need-to-know-about-theresa-may-s-brexit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And in other news...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"A Ton of of Tech Industry Leaders..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "A Ton of of Tech Industry Leaders..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can't wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I can't wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I can't wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the last time the dead voted in numbers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can't wait
So which shall it be? Hillary "The Status is Definitely Quo" Clinton, and watch our nation slide even further towards a despotic empire from which it is increasingly more difficult to liberate ourselves? Or Donald "Fuck You, Brownskins" Drumpf, and watch a shitshow of a firestorm sprout up from every corner of the Earth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politicians
Hillary may be the most Luddite presidential candidate in the last 50 years.
I want the next president to take the same attitude toward technology in general as Barack Obama has taken toward the space program; ignore it and get out of the way. Hillary will NOT do that. Trump probably would.
A Trump candidacy would be, ala Forrest Gump, "like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're going to get." We KNOW what a Hillary presidency would be and it would be BAD. VERY bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a Trump supporter either, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a Trump supporter either, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Super ironic that Vinod Khosla is on the list
In case you forgot, use your favorite search engine to find pages regarding Vinod Khosla Martins Beach like this one...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]