According to many, including Carly Fiorina, once a company does business internationally, one has to keep silent on (their) domestic issues regarding (democracy, human rights), otherwise you are branded a hypocrite in your home nation. So she's saying to look the other way at other cultures while making use of them while telling domestic workers to tolerate it or how they don't have a right to a job while taking those citizens' money (corporate welfare, from taxes) and supporting countries whose values don't match just like how anyone reading this wouldn't help Jim Jones because they didn't agree with his religious views. Confused yet? I definitely am, and to think both these major and successful companies collect corporate welfare. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ceos-hypocrisy-over-indiana-religious-freedom http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...im-cook-a-hypocrite-on-religious-freedom-law/ On this issue, she's not wrong? Is she wanting isolationism? Would the countries she dealt with (China, India) have tolerated her being in a leadership position the moment they no longer had use for (the money HP and she was handing to them)? Even when moving her campaign jobs to America's 51st state called 'India', she should have known about Holi? She's no less a dalit in their eyes since she wasn't borne of the noble caste... In other words, are both globalization and isolationism impossible? Are any of them sincere? Are any of these news articles telling the truth?