Search Box

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Why CEOs support Clinton

The Wall Street Journal ran an article on Friday, No Fortune 100 CEOs Back Republican Donald Trump. It turns out that 11 of those 100 have donated to Hillary Clinton. An excerpt:

Altogether, the 11 CEOs have donated more than $30,000 to Mrs. Clinton, according to Federal Election Commission records....

Individuals are capped at donating $5,400 to a candidate, so the financial loss for Mr. Trump’s campaign is small. But gathering such support is traditionally a goal for candidates, because it sends a signal to voters about their competence, particularly on economic issues.

After all, if anyone understands the economy and what it would take to get the economy moving again, it would be these CEOs, right?

The NY Times jumped on board thee days later with an article titled, Trump's a Businessman. Where's His Business Backing?

That article provided the expected anti-Trump spin.

But yesterday, Real Money ran an article, Cramer: We Could Be Setting up for Some Presidential Bargains, which offered a far more insightful and honest appraisal of why these execs donate. The salient paragraph, buried deep in the article:

Now let's circle back to the 11 CEOs who have given to the Hillary camp and discuss the difference between Clinton and President Obama. Clinton, by virtue of her many years in politics, has built up a huge number of friends, both liberal and pragmatic, who know she will take their calls. Most of the CEOs I have talked to during the last eight years have been deeply frustrated because President Obama either didn't take their calls or they believe he didn't take them seriously. I know plenty of Republican and Democrat CEOs who tell me that Clinton's the opposite. In the crazy year since this campaign really took off, I have only talked to one CEO of all the scores I talk to who is for Trump and has given him money. Other than that one CEO, I haven't talked to anyone who thinks Trump would listen to him and act on his or her advice.

When a chief exec says that Trump won't "listen to him and act on his or her advice," what that means is that Trump won't twist policy to suit the interests of the CEO's company because of his campaign donation.

Hillary, on the other hand, made it perfectly clear while Secretary of State that she would make herself available and amenable to anyone who gave a large enough donation to the Clinton Foundation.

CEOs don't get to be CEOs by being starry-eyed idealists. They attain their positions by being extremely self-interested, conniving sharks. And by being realists.

They recognize that Clinton is for sale, and Trump is not.

Hence the contributions.

37 comments:

Pangur said...

T%he entire system is corrupt and they seem not to hide it much any more. Ergo, Trump.

Anonymous said...

I am not, I repeat not, a religious person. But I do have my spiritual side, and the first thing that popped into mind when I saw Hillary was "the whore of Babylon." this post about how Hillary is on the corporate payroll underscores this. Read up about the Whore of Babylon. She is the personification of evil in the Book of Revelation. Again, I don't take this literally, but it is a great literary depiction of massive corruption.

On the other hand, Trump made me very nervous. It's it was like watching somebody do very badly on a job interview.

Puzzled

Anonymous said...

I agree with Pangur. I don't think this globalist corruption is a secret anymore, if it ever was. Those people who benefit from the status quo will vote for her. They have that right. For now.

Funny personal aside, I know several people who have just had children in the last year. By coincidence, two out of the three had daughters. The parents of the daughters are big Hillary supporters, and they support her entire program including LGBT rights. And yet, they dress their daughters in a hyper feminine fashion with little head bands around their daughter's bald baby heads. John, do you remember when we were growing up? People didn't dress their baby daughters in such hyper-feminine fashions, and no one put those little headbands around the girls' heads. Yet these LGBT supporting parents do that. According to LGBT dogma, these girls aren't really girls until they grow up and decide what gender they are. I wonder how these parents really feel in their hearts about what would happen if these girls decided they were boys in three or four years. According to Hillary, they have to go along with the program.

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Just read the Wiki entry on her. I'm not religious, either, had always assumed that "whore" meant, well, whore. But evidently it translates more as "idolatress," which doesn't have a lot of meaning to me. (Though I liked the description of her as bedecked in jewelry -- have you ever known a woman who adorned herself with excessive jewelry who was decent?)

However, it also says that she was associated with the AntiChrist, and I've always thought that the Devil was a great metaphor for sociopathy. He appeared to be what he was not, he tempted others into sin, and he had nothing but wickedness in his heart.

Yeah, I was rooting for Trump, but he could have done better. It seems that the people who were preparing him didn't do a great job.

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Yes, that's one more great example of liberal parents saying one thing undoing another. It's the same way they all talk about how our diversity is our strength, and all talk the anti-racist (anti-white) talk, yet when it comes to choosing a place to live, they will all choose to live as far away from sizable black populations as possible.

In their heart of hearts, a lot of these liberals know what's what, even if they can't admit it to themselves.

Anonymous said...

I have a friend, not close, but we end up seeing each other a fair amount because we have similar interests. (No details, please.) The problem is that in order to stay friends with her I have to use the liberal weasel-word code. This used to bother me a lot. But I gave up the idea of being truly close with her so I no longer care.

We were supposed to meet somewhere once, and because of train connection schedule issues, it was easier for me to get off a stop early and walk through a "a bad neighborhood." (That is, a black neighborhood.) I am not terribly fazed by this, unless it's a Charlotte situation. Perhaps now I wouldn't have done this. I'd have waited for the next connecting train. But I did, perhaps because I was with someone else - we got off the train and walked thru a "bad neighborhood." When I met her we had a conversation about this "bad neighborhood."

It was amazing how easy it is once you give up your independence of thought in order to fit in! OTOH, if you want to be yourself, you're sunk. And never ever think of being honest at work. In fact, don't even talk about "bad" neighborhoods. Stick to diverse, or vibrant.

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
All true. Most people are sheep, and content to remain that way.

My own situation is a little weird. I write this blog under my own name, but I don't work anymore, so it doesn't make any difference if I tell the truth. And even though I'm a race realist, because I look Hispanic, I'm actually safer walking through those neighborhood than, say, you -- I assume you're a white woman -- would be.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I'm a white woman, and the other person was a white woman. I would never have walked thru that "bad neighborhood" by myself, and probably today I wouldn't because it's after a bunch of BLM riots. But at the time things were a bit quieter.

On the whole I find that walking through "bad neighborhoods" is not the surefire killer that most liberals probably think it is.

"Even though I'm a race realist" - but you and I are also sex realists. A man is much more able to fight off an assailant than a woman. The physical differences between men and women are just so vast it's actually astounding that we've forgotten something so basic. I saw an ad for a TV show yesterday in which Bollywood princess Priyanka Chopra fights off a slew of men, singlehandedly. Shit, at least in James Cameron movies women fight off men w/the aid of technology. We've advanced so far (in la la land, that is) that one woman can kick the asses of a whole platoon of grown men.

OK, back in the real world, I'm not walking through "bad neighborhoods" anymore. Better be safe than sorry.

Puzzled

Anonymous said...

Oh, BTW, the now leftist Daily News ran this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/wife-protective-order-keith-scott-owned-handgun-article-1.2809061

He was a thug.

And I meant the comparison to the Whore of Babylon metaphorically. Hill is a corporate whore in a degenerate society.

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
True enough, I should have phrased it differently, that I'd be less of a target than a white guy. Here's the other weird way I have protective camouflage: I look sort of like a tough guy, even though I'm not. (I'm just a typical over sheltered, upper middle class, namby pamby wuss.)

Yes, my son and I joke all the time about movies like Lara Croft, where some perfectly made up woman like Angelina Jolie, with arms and legs like twigs, sends numerous bad guys who look like the Klitschko brothers flying with her kicks and punches. Hollywood, striking a blow for feminism!

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Yeah, no question about Scott. That the article you linked about the Charlotte situation a couple days ago captured the situation perfectly.

Lucian Lafayette said...

In one sense, HRC is guilty of idolatry. The false gods she worships are power, wealth, and fame. Now, while almost everyone who is not in line for beatification has to admit that they wouldn't turn down some of those three worldly pleasures, in HRC's case, the desire for those qualities has reached a level of pathological obsession. I honestly believe she would "throw" the election for, say, a $100 million bribe.

Luke

High Arka said...

John, I'll leave here a happy soul if I can get you to remember that the plural of CEO is CEOs, whereas if a CEO owns a donut, it's "The CEO's donut."

But more importantly than that, let me direct you to the words of a famous American:

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

I'm quite pleased to see a mainstream American party offering a candidate who isn't a war criminal in the first degree (Trump, for his prior support of Bill and Hillary Clinton, is perhaps a second-degree one, although he could claim not to have known what they intended). And I'm pleased to see that Goldman Sachs and Hillary Clinton profess not to like him. It's possible he actually didn't want to give Ivanka to the Tribe, and it's possible he only makes nice with Satanyahu because he's biding his time, but by God, after using Saxaphone Bill, Cowboy Dubya, and Hussein Obama as our last three clown puppets, someone like Trump is exactly who you'd expect them to pick to take the taste of Obama out of our collective mouths. That doesn't mean he's actually just another puppet--I could be accused of being too cynical--but the elaborate symphony with which the media "resisted" him, while massively covering, is at least enough to raise suspicion.

I want to believe Trump is what we are hoping him to be, but we have to be prepared for that to not be the case. Enjoy your sport, and enjoy your hope, and I hope that, a year from now, I am reading you exulting over the great things President Trump has done, rather than complaining about why "the Democratic Congress" is at fault for "stonewalling" all of Trump's great ideas (which he really WOULD do if just the damn Democrats would LET him!), and how important the next Congressional election will be so we can finally enact some change around here.

John Craig said...

Luke --
Hillary Clinton, idolatress. That does have a nice sound to it.

Anybody got a spare 100 mil?

John Craig said...

High Arka --
Thank you for that correction (you can leave here a happy soul, and I'm happy it takes so little to make you happy).

I wonder.....COULD this be an "elaborate symphony"? I doubt it; Trump just doesn't seem as easily bribable or blackmail able as the idolatress. Plus, he signals directly, or indirectly, the rise of the alt-right; and that's the last thing THEY want to see.

Agree that if elected, he will probably be a disappointment. I've been telling my son this for a while.

Anonymous said...

Trump really is thin-skinned, and I think he stunk up the joint but I don't think it matters a whole lot. There are two more debates. I've been reading various accounts of the debate and someone pointed out that Hillary shot her wad on the "Trump hates women" meme. If she tries it again, she will have exposed herself as a harridan. OK, she's done that already many times, but this time it will be so eye-rollingly obvious she'll turn off anyone who is undecided.

(And I wonder if anyone at this point is really undecided. I think they are just being coy.)

I don't know how much credence to put in these accounts, but I read many reports that showed people, especially women, were not convinced by Hillary. They perceptively saw that her promises are empty. When she gets up there & promises in her stentorian senatorial voice "good jobs" and economic revival via the solar industry (!), people know this is pure political bullshittery.

I have to say something about her touting of the solar industry. I mean, really. Come the fuck on! An economy the size of the US is not gonna run on solar power. Also, when you look into all these miracle cures, you see that they aren't. Miracle cures, I mean.

Suppose we ran 25% of the US power grid on solar power. The power must be stored in batteries. Batteries (a) are toxic and (b) run out. America's energy demands are simply massive. So, we'd be stinking up the earth with toxic dead batteries. Is this ecological? The best way to clean up our environment is to make use of existing fossil fuels cleaner. We already do that, and we should continue.

I disagree with High Arka. I have also heard that Trump is a plant whose purpose is to lose & to discredit legitimate border control forever. I don't believe that. Will explain in another comment.

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Trump IS thin-skinned, but i think his biggest error Monday night was playing too much defense and not enough offense. Hillary provides plenty of ammunition there. He also needs someone on his staff to give him some memorable one-liners, since those are what people seem to remember. And there are plenty of zingers to be had.

You're probably right about the number of undecideds. I suspect a lot of them just don't want to admit they're going to vote for Trump. We'll see.

Anonymous said...

I have an anecdote about solar power & batteries. I have a neighbor who (a) has borderline personality disorder and (b) was a complete Berner. (Parenthetically I have noticed that the vast majority of hardcore leftist middle-aged women have BPD. Look up the definition of BPD.)

She was mouthing off to me about solar power once. I said to her, "what about the batteries?"

She stopped short and her face literally cracked into a thousand pieces. You see, she didn't know that the energy from the solar panels has to be stored in something. Like the energy from an outlet has to be stored in a battery in a device. It's really the same thing. She didn't know a fact as basic as that.

Like most leftist harridans, she's got a reservoir of bullshit to spew when she's out of facts, so she did that, and I put an end to our exchange.

One company claims that their batteries are "free of toxic chemicals." Well they would say that, wouldn't they? I am going to write to them and challenge this claim. If it sounds too good to be true, it is.

Another reason not to use solar except in limited cases. I haven't really thought about this but his warnings are interesting:

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/solar.htm

Anyway - the point is that the lack of knowledge of most leftists is mind boggling.

Puzzled

Anthonyhehasnoname said...

Trump is not part of any conspiracy, he is a wild card who is a jackass. But him not being part of anything is a fresh start even though he might not be a good president. He is not being puppeted by anyone, he is greedy and ruthless but is not politically corrupt, he is exactly who he says he is, so electing him even if he isn't going to be good will break a cycle. If we can hold out the next 4-8 years through all his gaffs and worsened foreign relationships from his eccentric behavior and inexperience with speaking with foreign officials, then the restart button for politics may happen. Electing Hillary will be more of the same for the next 8 years, the situation will continue getting worse as is the trend and the USA's downfall will continue to stay in progress, but it will be more comfortable for the masses than taking the big risk I mentioned above. Donald is a means, to vote for him won't be for who he is or what he will do but for what will happen afterwards.

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
I've heard that given the size of the batteries that go into, say, Priuses, that's it's not clear that buying an electric car is better for the environment in the long term than buying a gas-powered one is.

That said, some of the arguments in the article you linked are ridiculous. The sun produces energy by nuclear fission, and nuclear power is inherently dangerous? The sun is there anyway, regardless of whether solar power is used. And the light from a computer screen can be bad for your eyes? The light from a computer screen is the same whether the ultimate source is hydroelectric, coal, gas, or solar. Parts of that article read almost like a spoof.

John Craig said...

Anthony --
Good summation. Amen. And I actually suspect that despite his campaign gaffes he's better at personal relationships with foreign leaders than either Obama has been or Hillary would be.

John Craig said...

High Arka --
Correction made, thank you.

Anonymous said...

A few thoughts on Trump.....

- Hillary seemed better prepared for the debate; she had more facts and statistics on the tip of her tongue, and a better attack plan
- The debate was a 2 on 1; Holt and Hillary against Trump; I believe enough people will recognize the unfair stacking of deck against the underdog that Trump will actually benefit from this
- Trump won this debate; the number one goal for him was to appear presidential and not 'lose it' in response to the H's attacks. He did that. In addition, he agreed with Hillary a number of times, I can't remember Hillary agreeing with Trump at all. And Hillary was by far the more nasty in the debate.
- Trump needs to state, over and over "Hillary is the candidate for the super-rich, globalist elite. I am the candidate for the middle and lower class. The globalist elite has soared over the past 10 years, while the middle and lower class have suffered".
- Trump has at least three gigantic policy ideas:
* bring manufacturing ( and US corporations) home
* bring immigration (legal and illegal) under control
* stop fighting endless foreign wars (i.e. Iraq, Syria, Libya). Do crush ISIS.
- Hillary has no gigantic ideas ( go ahead and name one)

On a bit of a tangent - I've seen the 'weak Republican' argument that bringing manufacturing home is not a winner. After all we export to the countries that make stuff for us, so by bringing manufacturing home, we'll reduce exports. And we get the benefit of cheaper goods.

So, its like an electrical diode to them. We COULD shutter 55,000 factories in the US. And then export to the countries that now make our stuff - oh yeah, a LOT LESS THAN WE IMPORT, and suffer massive trade deficits. The result: China profits wildly, has fantastic growth, arms itself to the teeth, gets assertive in the South China Sea (oooh boy, we'll stomp that down!!); while the US limps along with stagnant wages, declining work conditions and quality of life, zero interest rates, a bubble stock market, and everyone terrified the wheels are going to fall off the global economic system with the next downturn. BUT WE CAN'T GO BACK. NO.... our exports would decline and products would be more expensive. Give me a break.

- Ed

Anonymous said...

Yes, some of what the guy wrote in the link is very out there. LOL, retweets not endorsements.....

But light emitted from computer screens actually is bad for your eyes, at least pale colored eyes. Too much blue light leads to macular degeneration:

https://www.macular.org/ultra-violet-and-blue-light

Not a crank link.

Puzzled

Anonymous said...

Trump needs to talk about Hillary's emails.

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
But isn't it the same light what the original source of the electricity powering your house is?

Agree completely about Trump hitting Hillary on her emails.

Anonymous said...

Well, light is light, but computer light is from a concentrated source & tends towards the blue spectrum. Light is light, but I wouldn't want a laser beam shined in my eyes...the poison is in the dose.

Trump had the opportunity to hit Hillary hard on the emails but he flubbed it. He has to study up on this and slam her on it. Mother Jones is leftoid scum, and it's writer slights the importance of the subject but his account of the debate exchange is, sadly, accurate:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/heres-why-hillary-clinton-emails-didnt-get-much-attention-last-night

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Yes, funny, and as you say, sadly accurate description of how Trump reacted. Oh well. Trump has the right instincts, but he's not all that verbally adept, and he keeps tripping over his own ego.

Anthonyhehasnoname said...

http://www.anonews.co/russian-hackers-bernie/

A conspiracy I say!
A CONSPIRACY!

John Craig said...

Anthony--
Absolutely no question about that. A vast left-wing conspiracy.

Anthonyhehasnoname said...

The problem I have noted with the "masses" is that contrary to popular belief, they are not entirely uninformed or stupid, neither are they all informed and smart. It's worse, they are inbetween. In the olden days, people were overwhelming uneducated and uninformed. Nowadays, instead of being ignorant and KNOWING NOTHING, people nowadays KNOW THE WRONG THING.

John Craig said...

Anthony --
That's why they go to college, to become misinformed and have all their common sense taken away.

Anonymous said...

If you think about it, the current state of our country/world is due to a vast left wing conspiracy. The final endpoint is a NWO.

- birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
Exactly.

Anthonyhehasnoname said...

I don't think there is a NWO thing, or an illuminati. I think that there are uncountable conspiracies that operate in a gigantic mass. Think of it like the Iraq war after 2003, there was no USA vs clear cut enemy, it was a whole bunch of groups thrashing about in a warzone with shifting alliances over and over from which nobody gained any territory for long. It's the same with today, there is no one secret society in control, it's a mess.

Anthonyhehasnoname said...

I wonder if Hillary is a lesbian and Bill is just her beard. There are stories about her you know.

John Craig said...

Anthony --
I think when they first married, it was a relatively normal marriage, sexually speaking. But over time Hillary, who was reportedly bisexual from the time she was at Wellesley, has pretty much moved over to the other side as Bill has occupied himself with other females.