Apple CEO Tim Cook Plans to Host Fundraiser for Hillary Clinton Next Month

[normanfox]

During DNC speech, Hillary said that she would not allow Wallstreet to destryoy main street....

guess what? right after DNC, hedge funds sent Hillary campaign 48 millions and only 19 thousands to Trump campaign.

that is big slap on Sander face. She met him behind closed door and agree to his terms for his endorsement. then turn back and do the very thing that Sander has been accusing her, that Wallstreet buy and influence politician like Hillary

again, Democrats only tell you half of story. that they are for middle class but they never told you that they got big money from big banks and hedge fund.

 

[dk001]

Sorry, I'm kind of confused by your post. Are you saying that your company doesn't allow you to express opinions in social media, or merely to claim that your opinions are company opinions? What exactly is the terminating offense you talk about?

If an opinion I post in social media can be construed or interpreted as reflective of the company I work for I can be terminated for it.

Example A: I work for a company that makes widgets. My link to my company is part of my social media page. A "friend posts on my page that widget A is unsafe in some fashion. I post a generally agreeing reply.

Example B: I post that I feel my company is not doing anywhere near enough to help with Issue 12345E and they need to "step up".

Either statement can be interpreted by my company as reflective and can result in my termination. My opinion will likely never reflect sales of widget A, it likely will not sway public opinion. My statement regarding lack of help will not change anything. As a professional I have to always keep this aspect in mind. If I want in either example to post or express theses opinions, I have to have it approved by my company. Social posting are grounds for termination and that has been held up in court. They are also subpoenable.

Now expand that to someone with Tim's position and public face.
[doublepost=1469975685][/doublepost]

Why do people refer to Hilary as a socialist? She is right wing while Trump is extreme right wing.

The fact is that the only reason to vote for Trump is to cast a protest vote. Against the system. Against everything. Trump does not offer any solutions. Heck, he even denies climate change, the biggest treat facing us all. That's criminal compared to mailing with your own server.

Take a look at Hillary's morph. Her position (moderate vs. liberal) shifted almost a full 180 from "before Bernie" to "post Bernie".
Her stance aside, personally I just don't trust her. Her agenda will precede the US agenda. That worries me more than anything Trump can try to pull off.
[doublepost=1469975971][/doublepost]

But the market ISN'T correcting itself. That is the whole point. People have less buying power now than they did in the 1960's. Why do you think one breadwinner could support an entire household AND send the kids off to college in the 1950's, but that cannot be done now by very many? Because wages and cost are out of balance. Either the wages have to come up, or cost have to come down. Somehow the balance that is not correcting itself has to be restored.

And you didn't really answer my question either. If wages going up are a bad thing, wages going down to ridiculously low levels should be a great thing right? At least be consistent in your arguments.

We"ve already had the cost part go up. Now the wages need to follow.

We've been playing that game here in Cali and it hasn't helped. Then again, there is an argument to be made that we are anything but the norm.

 

[5684697]

Why wouldn't Tim get involved? It's not like you have two valid candidates with valid political views to choose from.

Half of the voters want to choose a dangerous fascist for their next president.

We don't know anything about trump. except that he would do anything to get richer. Like bullying, threatening and sueing old people that didn't want to move when he wanted to build a huge golf course in the middle of Scottish nature. Which turned out a disaster. He also promised 6000 jobs that never came (there are only 100).

4 years of Trump and the economy will be down the toilet, environmental laws will be reversed, less money for education, no transition to clean energy, more racism and hate causing a rise in crime and terrorism, ...

Empty promises, empty promises. That's all he has. So good for Tim for backing the only valid candidate. Even if she has her downsides too.

Hmmmmm, sounds like an extension of the Obama Administration!

This is the Kobyashi Maru Election. Deal with it.

And America will survive. Most of you seem to believe that the President is a Ruling Monarch.

 

[dk001]

so you increase wages for your employees, nice. but your competitors located in Mexico charge much less than yours. your business is losing money. what would you do? file bankrupcy, moving to Mexico, or laying off?

you are making business as evil, class warfare. small businesses or big businesses are also American. they provide jobs and complete globally. their goal is to make profit. without profit, what is the point of opening a business?

if you are not happy with your employer, then leave and work somewhere else, like 1950s and 60s. go back to school, get better skill and find better jobs. if employees are leaving for better jobs, then employer will raise wage to compete.

One point to keep in mind: in the 50's, 60's and 70's you could expect to get a job, move up within a company and retire after many years of supportive service. That scenario is the exception these days. As a well paid professional it is disheartening to see companies replace the longer term employees with new younger employees just for the wage savings. Taking it overseas for the same (and less regulatory control). Increasing the minimum wage will not change any of this. It will impact the minimal wage industries.

The new 3-R's: Reorganization, Replacement, Relocate
[doublepost=1469978016][/doublepost]

Like building a wall around Mountain View and making Google pay for it?

Sure. Let's make it water-tight. Anyone want to turn the water spigot on?

 

[LizKat]

If an opinion I post in social media can be construed or interpreted as reflective of the company I work for I can be terminated for it... ~snip~ ... Now expand that to someone with Tim's position and public face.

Tim Cook is the CEO of a publicly traded corporation. It’s common for any of them to participate in various --and public-- forms of lobbying government on policy issues relevant to their operations.

Buzzfeed announced the Tim Cook (and Lisa Jackson) fundraising effort as a result of being invited to it. Which of course is one way for Apple (excuse me: for Tim, and Lisa) to make sure the press hears about it. LOL.

Apple itself does not have a political action committee (although they could legally have one if they wanted to). So Cook and Jackson are acting as private citizens and their fundraiser was announced by an invitee.

Consider this hypothetical gig for a moment:

so your company’s CEO is, let’s say, socially quite conservative, and you decide one summer to throw a fund raiser for a gay rights activist running for state assemblyman, and you invite the Albany Times Union to your event, and the paper prints “Rhonindk, an employee of WidgetMakers here in the city, is throwing a fundraiser for Sam Wannabe next weekend out at the lake. Contribution levels at the event are $25, $100 and $250. WidgetMakers does not have a PAC, so Rhonindk is acting as a private citizen. ”​

Are you asking what might happen to Rhonindk in that hypothetical? I don’t know.

You have First Amendment rights as a private citizen but there some limits on them for you as an employee. There are some whistleblower protections, but short of that you probably could be fired for posting on social media something that mocks the widgets your company makes, like saying the not quite Alien Green paint your outfit slaps on its veggie peelers is a cheap knockoff of the color being put on some stylish cars this year.

Is it fair that your CEO could accompany a group of CEOs of widgetmakers to a meeting with lawmakers in Washington DC, and lobby for alterations to patent law, and actually refer to his own company having to use “crappy knockoffs of Alien Green paint for decades after someone mixed a few molecules together and called its something...” whereas you can’t even say on FB that the look of your outfit’s veggie peelers doesn’t cut it in the marketplace?

No but... that’s why we strive to become the CEO.

 

[burgundyyears]

You and I.... we are just wasting our time responding to that guy. As soon as you see him say something like "only 3 emails," and it was a "clerical error".... its pretty much obvious that this is someone that is loyal to the bone is completely incapable of objective insight or thinking into the issue. It really is sad that people are so uninformed politically.

I can understand voting for Hillary in a way, but I've seen way too many people bending over backwards to cover up and explain for a woman who obviously is a serial fabulist, with literally decades of documented lying behavior. Worse thing is she's not even very good at it. If you want to vote for a lousy liar, go right ahead, but please don't blow smoke around to try to make it look like she's some paragon of virtue that's just been a victim of circumstance how many umpteen times.

 

[MarkusL]

Most of you seem to believe that the President is a Ruling Monarch.

That's why half of America wants to mix it up and elect a court jester instead.

 

[dan110]

Like building a wall around Mountain View and making Google pay for it?

If that's what makes Apple great again, then by all means!
[doublepost=1469983133][/doublepost]

Still scratching my head as to why people think Tim's constitutional right to fundraise for whoever he wants should be infringed upon just because he runs a company.

If I'm a shareholder of a company, (of which I am at Apple), I want to see the person steering the direction of the ship completely focused on building the quality of that company without being distracted by the detritus of the American political system. A perfect example would be how Steve Jobs led Apple with a laser like focus. When he did charitable things, it was rarely promoted. When there were social issues going on, I can't remember off hand him joining the fray. He would more often say that he wasn't going to do it because it was a distraction. Remember him?

 

[MarkusL]

If I'm a shareholder of a company, (of which I am at Apple), I want to see the person steering the direction of the ship completely focused on building the quality of that company without being distracted by the detritus of the American political system. A perfect example would be how Steve Jobs led Apple with a laser like focus. When he did charitable things, it was rarely promoted. When there were social issues going on, I can't remember off hand him joining the fray. He would more often say that he wasn't going to do it because it was a distraction. Remember him?

I remember that guy! If I was a shareholder at the time I would probably have wanted him to spend more time on running the company and less time on leasing schemes to avoid having to put a license plate on his car. But I can accept that everyone needs a hobby even if their job is important.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

I can understand voting for Hillary in a way, but I've seen way too many people bending over backwards to cover up and explain for a woman who obviously is a serial fabulist, with literally decades of documented lying behavior. Worse thing is she's not even very good at it. If you want to vote for a lousy liar, go right ahead, but please don't blow smoke around to try to make it look like she's some paragon of virtue that's just been a victim of circumstance how many umpteen times.

And yet, time and again, she has been near the top of politicians on the honesty scale, while Trump is at the bottom.

 

[Treq]

I find it quite sad that you can't recognize or admit many of the things he stands for as a value that many people in the country agree with. No political party gets everything right, and when someone says that a particular politician has no values, i tend to immediately recognize they have no capability of worthwhile debate.

Second, never a good idea to start saying things like "as do most economists." You can't back that statement up, as one can find economists and businessmen that readily side with either side. And as i said before, most of the people i've observed freaking out are leaders from OTHER countries. The US has become a laughing stock. I have traveled quite extensively, and my wife is not from the US. The US is a pushover right now. Countries recognized that the US does not respond to anything, which is why so many countries are doing things that slap us in the face. There is nothing wrong with wanting a leader that wants to make it clear that he governs the US, not other countries. That he wants to do what's best for the US, not other countries. You can disagree with the best way to do that, but to just blanked say someone will "ruin the economy" by representing the US with more backbone is absurd. And having diplomatic and governing experience? Hillary was a disaster at the State Department. How is bad experience a good thing? What this country needs is an actual leader. To suggest that only a career politician can be a good leader is crazy.

And lastly, where do you get off saying she only had "3 emails" that were "mismarked." The State Department itself has already admitted that there were many hundreds that were classified. They have already admitted that there were Top Secret emails. They have already admitted that there were some classified above Top Secret. The Senate Intelligence Committee has even said already that they themselves were not allowed to see some of the emails, because they themselves didn't have security clearance to see them. Jesus, so many Democrats have there head so far up their rears they can't admit any wrongdoing.
Here's just one article. I'm not going to waste time linking you to more, because from the way you have talked thus far, it would do no good anyway. But hopefully other readers care to educate themselves more thoroughly.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ls-contained-info-above-top-secret-ig-n499886

Its a simple fact that in the last five years other prominent people have been convicted of criminal offenses for doing far less damage with classified information than she did. I find it shocking that you describe someone who sets up a private server to handle ALL State Department emails, knowing this was in full violation of rules she signed a document acknowledging, and knowing this was against the law, as a "clerical error." You did see how the person who set that up for her had to plead the 5th amendment right to not incriminate himself? (as did so many others in this administration). Got to be one of the most ridiculous, partisan, unwilling to accept truth statements i've ever heard.
[doublepost=1469969903][/doublepost]

Agreed. I didn't even know Jobs was a democrat until i was reading one of the books about him after he had passed.. and it talked about some of the things he did. Seems he didn't want to mix it with Apple. Something TC doesn't mind doing (ascribing his political beliefs to those of Apple's).

First, he doesn't stand for anything except Trump. How is it that Republicans are so gullible to think this guy, who lies left and right, says one thing then the opposite just minutes later, and loves that the "poorly educated" are his biggest voting block, is standing for their values? Amazing...

Second, find me an economist that thinks a trade war is a good thing right now and I'll show you a staggeringly bad economist.

Third, almost all those "classified" e-mails you talk about were either not marked as classified, or weren't classified until later. Everything she did had been done before and not prosecuted and was considered not best practices, but not illegal.

Fourth, the global public opinion and that of our allies of President Obama is mostly positive, certainly better than the preceding administration. The only ones who really have a bad opinion of the president are the Russians.

Lastly, how in the hell did you not know Jobs was liberal?

I'll leave you with a few links for you to enlighten yourself with:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/07/trump-and-sociopathy/491966/

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/economist-trump-presidency-global-risk-220887

http://www.castanet.net/news/World/159892/Trump-a-security-risk

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/24/7-charts-on-how-the-world-views-president-obama/

 

[burgundyyears]

And yet, time and again, she has been near the top of politicians on the honesty scale, while Trump is at the bottom.

Um, no, she just lies. I will grant that her lies are different and more focused than Trump's (who just fabulates as he talks, big elaborate lies are too much for him to handle), but she has a long and storied estrangement from the truth. Sometimes about little things, sometimes about big policy things, and sometimes about outrageously silly things that obviously never happened (like claiming - on multiple independent occasions - to having faced sniper fire as first lady, which would have been front page headline news had it ever actually occurred.) It's just the capper in her mediocre stints in public service - an undistinguished, mediocre senator and an undistinguished, mediocre secretary of state.

The reality is both major party candidates are serial fabulists and it's now a full-bore battle of the liars. I have come to conclude that the American people just want their leaders to lie and whisper sweet nothings into their ears, so they nominated two serial liars. Coal miners want to be lied to and told the coal jobs are going to be taken back from the Chinese and the EPA. Boomers want to be lied to and told Social Security and Medicare are perfectly healthy and there's plenty of money to pay benefits for everyone forever. Millennials want to be lied to and told that we can cancel all that pesky student loan debt and free college for everyone!

The victory of either of them lowers the standing and future of the country. I wish it was just the candidates, but I think it reflects the electorate. I seriously question the viability of the country at this point in the 15-30 year range.

 

[phrehdd]

Maybe lil Timmie is mixing personal with business. After all, we have seen Hillary visit with various entities, they donate to her sordid charity and gain something in return.

 

[DoctorTech]

We don't know anything about trump. except that he would do anything to get richer. Like bullying, threatening and sueing old people that didn't want to move when he wanted to build a huge golf course in the middle of Scottish nature. Which turned out a disaster. He also promised 6000 jobs that never came (there are only 100).

Wow, Trump must be an incredible manager. Just 100 people did the design of the golf course itself and the club house and any other buildings on the property. Those same 100 people did the earthmoving, laid the sod, paved the roads and parking lots, built the buildings, painted the buildings, did the wiring, plumbing, roofing, maintenance. They purchase ingredients, cook the food, serve the food, bus the tables, mow the grass, sell product and teach lessons at the pro-shop. Trump must be great at finding and multi-talented individuals for 100 people to do all that.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Um, no, she just lies.

Umm, yes. You can start here and work your way back.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ump/hillary-clinton-obama-birther-fact-check/

The reality is both major party candidates are serial fabulists and it's now a full-bore battle of the liars. I have come to conclude that the American people just want their leaders to lie and whisper sweet nothings into their ears,

I wonder how you would have described Ronald Reagan? What I mean is, while everyone hated Richard Nixon and his lies, no President in my lifetime ever lied as seriously as Reagan. But, he was very, very good at telling people what they wanted to hear about themselves.

Coal miners want to be lied to and told the coal jobs are going to be taken back from the Chinese and the EPA.

Coal is, thankfully, being killed by fracking. OK as a transitional fuel, but, natural gas may kill all of us instead coal, since it turns out there is a lot more cheap natural gas than we thought. You are right-- anybody who says that they are going to make coal great again is a liar. Politicians have always lied about these things. Or, dissembled. But, in this specific case-- why pick on Clinton and not Trump?

Boomers want to be lied to and told Social Security and Medicare are perfectly healthy and there's plenty of money to pay benefits for everyone forever.

Social Security is a perfectly good program which can be re-tuned again if people continue to live even longer. I take it you don't like Social Security? Social Security outlived my grandparents generation, my parents generation, and has a large asset surplus today, which combined with ongoing taxes, could keep it going until 2035 paying full benefits without making any changes. (I wouldn't recommend doing that, but, there it is.) Odds are it will outlive me. And, it can be adjusted again if need be. If robots put all of us out of work and we all live to 120 with the care of robots, then, we'll just have to find a different way to tax something to keep us all going-- but, it is a fact that Social Security can go on indefinitely with modest adjustments.

Medicare is another story. (Some other thread.)

Millennials want to be lied to and told that we can cancel all that pesky student loan debt and free college for everyone!

It is funny, but, in the Western states of the U.S., back in the day, (state) college was pretty much tuition-free. (I'm told it was generally more expensive in the East.) So, how come we could afford to do that then and not now?

The victory of either of them lowers the standing and future of the country. I wish it was just the candidates, but I think it reflects the electorate. I seriously question the viability of the country at this point in the 15-30 year range.

15-30 years? I'm really worried about January 21st, and the possibility that a xenophobic bully with zero empathy will be Commander in Chief.

 

[LizKat]

That's why half of America wants to mix it up and elect a court jester instead.

But do potential Trump voters understand the danger of mixing it up by electing a court jester to the presidency of the USA? Our foreign allies are alarmed over their (understandable) inability to tell when Trump is "joking" and when he's elaborating on his actual ideas for foreign policy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/u...iplomats-seek-reassurance-from-democrats.html​

Their alarm is no joke, that's for sure. These are our allies. We benefit from these alliances; their leaders and diplomats can intercede for us via their own connections when we may encounter issues needing third parties.

We benefit from coalition with allies during times of conflict, making use of their knowledge of colonial histories and cultural issues we may be less familiar with. In our American celebration of being exceptional, we as average USA citizens do exceed at not knowing much about a lot of things off our fair shores, even though many of our fellow citizens are offshore 24/7/365 in support of various economic, geopolitical, social and military endeavors.

This is how it is. This is real life. No matter who's elected president, we are not going to summon everyone home, roll up the virtual drawbridges and live off the fat of the land here at home in the USA. We cannot do it.

So it may be fun if we want to kid around as private citizens and call French fries freedom fries, stuff like that, but it's even better if our President can any morning pick up the phone and ask Hollande if he would mind chatting up this or that head of state with whom we have a bit of a hassle going on at the moment. Allies? Don't leave home without them.

Donald Trump makes it sound like our allies are just so many piglets attached to the USA as their sow. If pressed, he simply cannot make that case. I can hardly wait for the debates.

 

[CarlJ]

That's why half of America wants to mix it up and elect a court jester instead.

Except he's not sharp enough to be a court jester.

 

[hagar]

Wow, Trump must be an incredible manager. Just 100 people did the design of the golf course itself and the club house and any other buildings on the property. Those same 100 people did the earthmoving, laid the sod, paved the roads and parking lots, built the buildings, painted the buildings, did the wiring, plumbing, roofing, maintenance. They purchase ingredients, cook the food, serve the food, bus the tables, mow the grass, sell product and teach lessons at the pro-shop. Trump must be great at finding and multi-talented individuals for 100 people to do all that.

Don't try to be smart. The plan was the golf course would provide 6000 permanent jobs. This obviously does not include the construction phase (and the bullying part). It turned out there are only 100 permanent jobs created. But the environment got destroyed and people lost their homes.

 

[burgundyyears]

Umm, yes. You can start here and work your way back.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ump/hillary-clinton-obama-birther-fact-check/

I don't see what relevance Donald Trump has to a discussion of Hillary's lack of truthfulness. Do you think I support him? Let me assure you, I do not. Donald is no better than her.

Here's another politifact article since you like them, where it largely agrees that Hillary can perhaps most charitably be described as a dissembling, deceptive flip flopper:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hecking-hillary-clinton-lying-13-minutes-str/

And this of course leaves out her embarrassing little e-mail server incident where she told another dissembling load of lies. Because, you know, she is a fabulist.

Here's another interesting article, all the more because I usually think CNN is pretty crappy:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/24/politics/presidents-lie/

Do you think Hillary's lies serve herself, or this country? I think the answer is obvious on that score.

I wonder how you would have described Ronald Reagan? What I mean is, while everyone hated Richard Nixon and his lies, no President in my lifetime ever lied as seriously as Reagan. But, he was very, very good at telling people what they wanted to hear about themselves.

Reagan was nowhere near as paranoid as Hillary. Hillary is Nixon in a pantsuit.

Coal is, thankfully, being killed by fracking. OK as a transitional fuel, but, natural gas may kill all of us instead coal, since it turns out there is a lot more cheap natural gas than we thought. You are right-- anybody who says that they are going to make coal great again is a liar. Politicians have always lied about these things. Or, dissembled. But, in this specific case-- why pick on Clinton and not Trump?

I actually was picking on Trump with this example. He's the one that's going to make coal great again or some such crap.

Social Security is a perfectly good program which can be re-tuned again if people continue to live even longer. I take it you don't like Social Security? Social Security outlived my grandparents generation, my parents generation, and has a large asset surplus today, which combined with ongoing taxes, could keep it going until 2035 paying full benefits without making any changes. (I wouldn't recommend doing that, but, there it is.) Odds are it will outlive me. And, it can be adjusted again if need be. If robots put all of us out of work and we all live to 120 with the care of robots, then, we'll just have to find a different way to tax something to keep us all going-- but, it is a fact that Social Security can go on indefinitely with modest adjustments.

Medicare is another story. (Some other thread.)

SSA is collecting substantial taxes under false pretenses from people of my age at this point. 2035 is just not that far away and yet the SSA sends me these quaint, make-believe statements about what I will supposedly be able to collect (to the nearest dollar, no less!) in 30-40 years. Yeah, it's not going to happen and you and I both know that. Structurally, it's going to face serious demographic headwinds after the fund is exhausted. I think you are using a very loose interpretation of "modest." I would not want to be the President to have to explain these "modest" cuts in benefits. People melt down when they don't get some tiny COLA adjustment they think they should get - but actual cuts to benefits? Good lord. There will be great anger when some Congress has to fall on their swords (probably at the latest and most acute point of crisis) and permanently reduce benefits, an act that of course would get any private retirement account operator thrown into jail. But then again, social security is not actually an account that you have any right to, it's just a law from Congress, and they can revoke it at any time they please.

Medicare, as you've pointed out, will experience shortfalls far sooner, which assures me that the issues with SS will not be addressed until it's an acute crisis.

It is funny, but, in the Western states of the U.S., back in the day, (state) college was pretty much tuition-free. (I'm told it was generally more expensive in the East.) So, how come we could afford to do that then and not now?

The federal government decided to greatly increase their involvement with education, and accordingly shoveled cash and loan guarantees to colleges with all sorts of administrative strings. Colleges, never ones to turn down oodles of dollars, obliged accordingly, and when the cost signaling was muted with the train of federal money, colleges were free to pass regular large tuition increases to support ever burgeoning administrative departments that educate no one. You'll get no beef with me that the college system was less wasteful and expensive before the federal government got so entwined with it.

15-30 years? I'm really worried about January 21st, and the possibility that a xenophobic bully with zero empathy will be Commander in Chief.

Who knows, maybe on election night, if he would pull off the win, Trump would just come out on stage, say "You idiots actually voted for me? God, this country is ****ed." and then announce a new season of The Apprentice, revealing himself to be the master troll of all time. I would forgive him for everything if he actually did that.

 

[hagar]

Sander shouted out loud that we are a super rich nation and that we should give out free school and free healthcare and raising minimum wage. and that a tiny nation like Switzerland can do this why can't we....

Yes, we are rich nation. and yes Switzerland can give out free this and that BUT we are in 20 trillion debt hole, and we are digging deeper. Congress has to vote to raise national debt limit over and over (like credit card limit).

like you scan and max out all your credit cards to buy house, boat, bodyguard, etc and call yourself rich and powerful. and Switzerland does not have an army that cost $500 billion dollars to run. This army subsidizes security cost in EU and all over the globe.

Socialist/democrats only tell you half of the story.

And who caused the biggest part of the dept? The republicans.

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

It certainly is his right. However, these days people at the lowest level of a company get fired for things they say on their own time. It's hard to imagine that the face of one of the largest, most powerful and influential organizations in the world would be treated with less scrutiny.

Being the head of Apple is the only reason anyone (and everyone) knows who he is.

Seriously? You don't think you are entitled to fundraise on your personal time off the clock if you are an average joe working at a company? That's odd...since I've done it!

At least Trump isn't corrupt

Isn't corrupt? That's got to be a joke, right?

Wow when did we get to the point where a lying criminal is better than a loud mouth?

When people decided that sanity looks better than "Bing Bing Bing" cray cray scatterbrained thinking when it comes to nuclear weapons and armies. And when people decided that empathy is better than callous indifference towards your fellow human beings.

5) Why do you guys need to keep bringing up the damn birth certificate thing? Obama created that whole to-do by refusing to show his. It was quite a simple request. You are required to have one to be president. Really don't get why he wouldn't show it, and i really don't get why people think its wrong to have to show it when asked. I've had to show my birth certificate for various things in my life, as have you I'm sure. Tell you what... next time you are required to show yours for something, try refusing... call the person asking for it a "birther". See where that gets you.

Incorrect. He showed the short form version that all Hawaii born citizens use. It just wasn't good enough for Trump. Oh no...he had to have the long form version even though it isn't used by Hawaii anymore.

Dr. Chiyome Fukino, a former director of the Hawaii Department of Health and a Republican, told CNN in her most extensive comments to date that she has "no doubt" Obama was born in the state.

Obama's 2008 campaign produced a certification of live birth, a document legally accepted as confirmation of a birth and routinely used for official purposes. Fukino went one step further, taking advantage of a state law that allows certain public officials to examine a person's actual birth certificate if there is a "direct and tangible interest."

The president's certificate, she said, is stored in a vault in the building that houses the Department of Health. Ironically, unlike the certificate of live birth, it is no longer accepted for official usage.

Obama's certificate is "absolutely authentic," she said. "He was absolutely born here in the state of Hawaii." http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/25/birthers.obama.hawaii/

Perfect example of you can't reason with incompetence.

Perfect example of a weak ineffectual response. I'll match my brain power against a Trump supporter any day of the week and come out way on top.

We've been playing that game here in Cali and it hasn't helped. Then again, there is an argument to be made that we are anything but the norm.

What hasn't helped? The minimum wage being raised? Cost of living are dramatically higher in California. Of course a $10 an hour wage hasn't helped enough. But it is a hell of a lot better than $7.25 an hour.

If I'm a shareholder of a company, (of which I am at Apple), I want to see the person steering the direction of the ship completely focused on building the quality of that company without being distracted by the detritus of the American political system.

Then you are only looking at half the picture and aren't being a very good shareholder. Because in the tech biz with laws on privacy, net neutrality, getting your auto driving car on the road, etc. you have to work with in the American political system. Else it will run over you. He has to do the same in China which is why he is there so much.

 

[CarlJ]

1) Hillary so obviously violated a lot of laws, and no-one involved seriously denies this. Her best defense was that she was just grossly incompetent, not criminal.

Umpteen investigations (wasting millions of taxpayer dollars) by the best minds the Republicans have to offer have failed to find anything to prosecute. Either you're telling me she has NOT "obviously violated a lot of laws" (despite incessant conservative whining to the contrary), or you're telling me that she has OUTSMARTED EVERY REPUBLICAN IN WASHINGTON. If the former we should drop this damn thing already, if the latter then yes, I absolutely want her for president.

And yet, the most that a lot of Trump supporters can do is yell "FELON" over and over. Yelling something over and over doesn't make it true. Smh.

2) Bush's "war crimes" were to get involved in a ware you didn't agree with.

Bush's war crimes start with leading the country to invade a sovereign nation on trumped up charges, which the intelligence community were collectively telling him were absolutely without merit. Yes, a lot of people went along with him. He swore up and down that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was an imminent threat to the US. Most of the neocons were loudly proclaiming that anyone that didn't go along with them were traitors to the US. To turn around now and say, "oh, but it wasn't Bush's fault"... that's spinning the situation awfully hard.

5) Why do you guys need to keep bringing up the damn birth certificate thing? Obama created that whole to-do by refusing to show his. It was quite a simple request. You are required to have one to be president.

You've already been told that the campaign readily provided the legal proof, the short form which is what is legally accepted in Hawaii. But I will still accept your argument as reasonable - as soon as you provide thoroughly-documented proof that the same folks who made the request of President Obama, ALSO made the same exact request, with the same level of scrutiny involved, of every single presidential candidate for the last, say, 40 years. Selective enforcement is discrimination, and those doing it usually hide behind the same claim, "oh, but this is perfectly legal", while acting all innocent and put upon. Nice try.

 

[bpeeps]

It really pisses me off that the money I spend on Apple products is getting funneled to a corrupt lying socialist political hack. I just spent close to $3K last night at Apple on a new MBP for my daughter, headed back to college.... which by the way we are paying for out of pocket.

I don't know why business leaders, entertainers, etc. can't keep their political views out of their business.

Return it. Problem solved.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

SSA is collecting substantial taxes under false pretenses from people of my age at this point.

I'm sorry, but I don't look at the situation this way at all. Yes, the will have to do something before 2035. IMHO, it makes sense to start raising social security taxes in 2020 or so-- the point where the fund will start to shrink.

2035 is just not that far away and yet the SSA sends me these quaint, make-believe statements about what I will supposedly be able to collect (to the nearest dollar, no less!) in 30-40 years. Yeah, it's not going to happen and you and I both know that. Structurally, it's going to face serious demographic headwinds after the fund is exhausted. I think you are using a very loose interpretation of "modest."

It is all right here:

http://crfb.org/sites/default/files/debunking_8_social_security_myths_on_its_80th_birthday.pdf

In order to maintain existing benefits, taxes will have to be increased. I'm OK with that. Who knows, I might still be working, but, I'm still OK with it. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go pension plan-- if people are going to insist on living longer, taxes will have to go up.

I would not want to be the President to have to explain these "modest" cuts in benefits. People melt down when they don't get some tiny COLA adjustment they think they should get - but actual cuts to benefits? Good lord. There will be great anger when some Congress has to fall on their swords (probably at the latest and most acute point of crisis) and permanently reduce benefits, an act that of course would get any private retirement account operator thrown into jail.

That isn't how it works. Companies go bankrupt all the time. At least, if the company has an ERISA-qualified plan, if the company goes bankrupt, the pension plan funds are protected assets that are not pooled with company assets. But, companies in financial trouble can reduce benefits, freeze contributions, and if they are under contract with a union, pretty much it works like any old contract-- reaffirmed recently by the SCOTUS unanimously AFAIK. Nobody goes to jail unless they actually commit fraud. Here are a couple of articles you might want to read:

http://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/T047-C000-S002-is-your-pension-still-safe.html

http://www.bna.com/supreme-court-paves-n17179922497/

The law is complicated, and, I'm not a lawyer and don't give legal or financial advice.

But then again, social security is not actually an account that you have any right to, it's just a law from Congress, and they can revoke it at any time they please.

I get it. You are a Libertarian and you don't like government pensions. I'm not a Libertarian, and, I think Social Security has been a wonderful program that protected my grandparents from poverty in just the way it was supposed to. On the whole Libertarian thing, the U.S. has had a mixed capitalist/socialist system for a long time and is the most prosperous large country in history. In fact, over the last 30 years, mixed economies have done very well, and obviously a number of purely socialist countries have converted to mixed economies.

Medicare, as you've pointed out, will experience shortfalls far sooner, which assures me that the issues with SS will not be addressed until it's an acute crisis.

Medicare is not sustainable in its current form, and, it is a huge issue for the elderly in the U.S. I really wish that the U.S. could exorcise the ghost of "socialized medicine" horror, and figure out how to do socialized medicine right.

Who knows, maybe on election night, if he would pull off the win, Trump would just come out on stage, say "You idiots actually voted for me? God, this country is ****ed." and then announce a new season of The Apprentice, revealing himself to be the master troll of all time. I would forgive him for everything if he actually did that.

I don't believe that is going to happen:

I was prepared to like him as I boarded his black 727 at La Guardia for the flight to Mar-a-Lago, his Florida home—prepared to discover that his over-the-top public persona was a clever pose. That underneath was an ironic wit, an ordinary but clever guy. But no. With Trump, what you see is what you get.

I watched as Trump strutted around the beautifully groomed clay tennis courts on his estate, managed by noted tennis pro Anthony Boulle. The courts had been prepped meticulously for a full day of scheduled matches. Trump took exception to the design of the spaces between courts. In particular, he didn’t like a small metal box—a pump and cooler for the water fountain alongside—which he thought looked ugly. He first questioned its placement, then crudely disparaged it, then kicked the box, which didn’t budge, and then stooped—red-faced and fuming—to tear it loose from its moorings, rupturing a water line and sending a geyser to soak the courts. Boulle looked horrified, a weekend of tennis abruptly drowned. Catching a glimpse of me watching, Trump grimaced.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/12/donald-trump-mark-bowden-playboy-profile

 

[normanfox]

And who caused the biggest part of the dept? The republicans.

Let's go along with your logic. so since republicans caused big debt, the democrats should give out free stuff to build more debt to compete with the republicans? no wonder the Americans are tired of politician elite and establishment, spending more to get more votes.

Here is fact for you... Bush was an idiot and spent 1 trillions on Iraq war. that is bad but here is worse. Since Obama took the office, the national debt increased by 9 trillions. Obama is so proud of the economy with low employment rate but he forgot to tell you that he scanned national credit cards to the max and borrowed 9 trillion dollars, unprecedented. Democrats only tell you half of the story.

wow, the debt hole is getting deeper and faster. There is no way out of this hole but getting deeper. Remember Greece? U.S is not that far away from Greece's debt trouble.