Yes. If you mentioned that on the assumption that I'm a trump supporter - I'm about as far from that as there is (I'm not a us citizen for a start).
Fair enough.
I had wondered about that, as I had recalled some of your posts from the recent, or more, distant, past.
Trump is a buffoon, and the what he stands for is a national disgrace.
No argument there.
This isn't a partisan issue, it is not screwing over your company, your employees and your customers over something there's nothing you can do about. If apple or any other company was to refuse to attend the inauguration for any new leader, they're making a mistake and will have a far tougher time negotiating policy than if they actually attend what is ultimately a networking event.
The election happened; this is the result. I don't like it, I don't agree with it, but doing things to deliberately offend the commander in chief when there are far bigger issues at stake is just stupid.
This is not a question of giving offence by refusing to attend an inauguration to which you have received an invitation.
My concerns arise from how these prominent players in the world of capital went about attending the inauguration.
I wonder whether it is entirely necessary to be quite so servile, sycophantic and obsequious, to those about to take office and power, even in pursuit of shareholder profit?
Moreover, is it entirely fitting for business to offer donations, or funding, for an inauguration - that is, not a political campaign, but for an actual inauguration - quite so flagrantly?
For that matter, once again, I will ask again whether it is healthy, for a (supposed) democracy for the boundaries between capital and government to be so blurred?
And yesterday's optics all but confirmed this:
Is it appropriate for - this broligarchy, this collection of wealthy techbro oligarchs - to be seated in the front row, that is, the row immediately in front of the cabinet who were about to take office during an inauguration?
Where does behaviour, or conduct, prompted by the desire to "not to seek to give offence" (and perhaps, also by political preferences) - and preserve shareholder profit - end?
Are there limits beyond which one should not abase oneself to power in pursuit of shareholder profit?