In the Age of Trump, Tech CEOs Cast Themselves As the New Statesmen (buzzfeed.com)

An anonymous reader shares an insightful story on Buzzfeed News: Mark Zuckerberg isn't running for president of the United States, but you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise. On Tuesday morning, the Facebook CEO kicked off the company's annual developers conference in San Francisco with a glancing shot at Donald Trump, followed by a reiteration of the company's oft-repeated pledge to bring the world together. Zuck's not alone. Last month Apple CEO Tim Cook led his keynote with a similar stump-speech vibe. He dove right into the company's national security and privacy fight against the FBI. Two weeks ago Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella told attendees of the company's annual Build developers conference of plans to "move our society forward," asking "profound questions" of his developers:"Is technology empowering people or is it displacing us? Is technology helping us preserve our enduring values such as privacy, or is it compromising it?" Google CEO Sundar Pichai hasn't delivered his big keynote yet (it's coming up May 18), but late last year he issued an open letter in support of Muslims after Donald Trump suggested he'd blanket-ban the religious group from entering the United States. Welcome to 2016: where tech's biggest leaders are no longer selling themselves as innovators, creative geniuses, or domineering tycoons, but as world leaders -- statesmen shaping the course of human history.According to a report from last month, several tech executives -- including Tim Cook, Elon Musk, Larry Page, and Sean Parker -- met recently to discuss how to "stop Donald Trump." Musk, however, later refuted such reports.

Comments

Nothing New

[ranton]

Companies banding together to exert control on governments is nothing new. This only seems new because it at least appears they aren't doing it for financial reasons, but instead are doing it for a real public good. This appears to be a good shift to me, but the cynical side of me still smells a rat.

Re:Nothing New

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they ARE doing it for financial reasons -

Zuckerberg heads up a PAC which is trying to open up more immigration and H1Bs - because, y'know, he *cares* about the people and it has nothing at all to do with getting cheaper tech labor into the states. That goes for all the tech CEOs listed here.

Trump is adamantly against that so he must be taken down.

Re:Nothing New

[bangular]

I think the reason so many CEO's attack Trump specifically is because he's not bought and paid for. They don't have him in their pocket, so there's no telling what he'd do as president. He's a wild card. Many people assume he'd "make America great again" but most likely he'd just do whatever got him a lot of news and made him popular.

He already has money. At his age he probably started to think about death and if people will remember him. Win or lose, people are going to remember Trump.

Re:Nothing New

[Tailhook]

real public good

Cheap labor. Full stop.

Re:Nothing New

[PetiePooo]

This only seems new because it at least appears they aren't doing it for financial reasons, but instead are doing it for a real public good.

It used to be that companies feared the government over all; that they would do whatever the government asked them to do, never mind how their customers felt about their actions. The old companies, like AT&T and Verizon (formed from other baby Bells) to name a few, still do, as is evident by their complicity in citizen surveillance.

Now, it seems, the customers are finally able to exert some control on a company's actions. They're still doing it for financial reasons, but they finally are recognizing that it's the customers, not the government, that ultimately choose their fate. Plus, without that customer revenue, they can't buy their legislator.. er, I mean promote a favorable business environment through campaign funding.

It's not that they're doing it for a real public good; they're doing it out of self-preservation. It's still for financial reasons..

A sad thought: do we have the millennials and their easily offended, scorched-earth culture to thank for that?

Re:Nothing New

[quantaman]

Actually they ARE doing it for financial reasons -

Zuckerberg heads up a PAC which is trying to open up more immigration and H1Bs - because, y'know, he *cares* about the people and it has nothing at all to do with getting cheaper tech labor into the states. That goes for all the tech CEOs listed here.

Trump is adamantly against that so he must be taken down.

More likely they're just terrified by the prospect of a Trump presidency for the same reason everyone else is, but instead of posting on a message board they're able to reach a far wider audience.

Much for the same reason rich people dabbling in politics is hardly new, if anything tech CEOs have been a bit unusual as they previously tried to stay out of mainstream party politics.

Re:Nothing New

[flopsquad]

I think the reason so many CEO's attack Trump specifically is because he's not bought and paid for. They don't have him in their pocket, so there's no telling what he'd do as president. He's a wild card. Many people assume he'd "make America great again" but most likely he'd just do whatever got him a lot of news and made him popular.

No need to attribute to plutocratic machinations that which can be adequately explained by logic.

You're spot on about Trump being an unpredictable loose cannon. Large, established businesses and financial markets abhor precisely the kind of chaos Donald Trump promises to bring to the White House.

Say you run a business or manage investments. You'd like to have at least some vague idea of how things are going to go over the next week, month, quarter, year, and so on, so you can make somewhat-informed decisions about market conditions, raw materials, domestic and global trade conditions, capital outlays, etc.

So Donald Trump is POTUS. You wake up in the morning, and legitimately wonder if today President Trump is going to:

- Begin a campaign of mass deportations;
- Decide we shake down Mexico for billions of dollars and divert significant steel and cement production to build a big ass wall;
- Decide to cut an entire federal agency;
- Decide to end a major work visa program;
- Be totally cool with, or maybe start a war over, Putin's latest incursion into Eastern Europe;
- Simultaneously shit on the tourism industry and the Constitution by announcing an entire religion is forbidden from entering the country;
- Say some offhanded ridiculous thing that stirs up outrage/protest here or abroad;
- Say some offhanded ridiculous thing that makes it harder for people in $your_industry to do business here or abroad;
- Say something cute about [minorities/women/Muslims/poor people/some other group he thinks are 'total losers"] that paints America and American businesses in a bad light;
- Embarrass the country; act like running the country is a reality TV show;
- Try to shout over, or interfere with, or shut down a media outlet that's giving him problems;
- Refuse to raise the debt ceiling and/or let us default on some obligations;
- Cause worldwide condemnation and mutiny by ordering our armed forces to kill terrorists' family members;
- Pull troops out of Japan and South Korea and try to hand them nukes to make up for it;
- Start a WWIII-sized trade war;
- Start actual WWIII.

Regardless of what kind of job he's done running his own private sector interests, his unpredictability and volatility (a source of personal pride for him) would cause perpetual fear and chaos in the global economy. So it makes sense than just about any large corporation would look at that and say, "No thanks."

Re:Nothing New

[alvinrod]

To be fair, if we're going to have any immigration at all in the United States, and let's be honest the country wouldn't be where it is if we didn't do this historically, bringing in the kinds of people that can get an H1B is what we should be doing. This of course does drive down demand for highly skilled workers born in the U.S., but someone can always work a job below their skill ceiling while the reverse is not true.

I'd rather bring in more H1B workers and stop immigrants who are taking many of the unskilled labor positions than the opposite. If you do that, and remove the illegal immigrants, it means more jobs for those Americans who can't work in any skilled positions. That might mean prices for some of those goods go up as employers have to pay a minimum wage, but you can't expect the market to function appropriately when there some are held to different rules than others.

In the long run I think this is a better solution as it means that the U.S. is poaching top talent from other countries. It really sucks for the countries that end up experiencing massive amounts of brain drain that prevents them from advancing economically themselves, but there's also an argument to be made that their best and most skilled workers wouldn't be as effective there as in the U.S. so whether one produces more net benefit for the world is arguable.

Either way, the H1B system needs some major overhauls. I wouldn't even mind allowing more people in so long as the companies doing so have to pay progressively higher costs as the total number of holders increase. At least that way it can respond to the market and companies will eventually find it less expensive to find more local talent or only bring in foreigners in those cases where the need is more than worth the excess expense.

Re:Nothing New

[myowntrueself]

Actually they ARE doing it for financial reasons -

Zuckerberg heads up a PAC which is trying to open up more immigration and H1Bs - because, y'know, he *cares* about the people and it has nothing at all to do with getting cheaper tech labor into the states. That goes for all the tech CEOs listed here.

Trump is adamantly against that so he must be taken down.

More likely they're just terrified by the prospect of a Trump presidency for the same reason everyone else is

You mean except for all the millions who are voting for him, right?

Re:Nothing New

[avandesande]

Why have H1b workers? If we need more people like this then we should make it easier for them to immigrate and become citizens. Of course then the companies that hire them won't have the leverage to depress their wages....

Re:Nothing New

[tombak]

Why do you assume hiring H1B workers means he doesnt *care*? I am an H1B worker from Canada working in Silicon Valley and I work for one of the big companies and have many H1B friends who work for fb/linkedin and I can assure you if facebook could find the talent they are looking for in the pool of American candidates they wouldn't hire us. All the respectable companies pay the H1B guys the same rate as the local hires but then they have to go through the hassle of worrying about their immigration status, so it's definitely much better for them to hire locals. But there are not enoough! I know recruiters who call me and plead with me to give them contact info for American candidates because they are hiring for defense contractors, and they cant find anyone! I dont know why you closet-racist libertarian Silicon Valley a**holes always assume that H1B workers are under-qualified, unwashed peasants being imported from India and turning out s**t code. But then again, if im offended by closet-racist libertarian Silicon Valley a**holes i shouldnt be reading slashdot. My bad.

Re:Nothing New

[Austerity Empowers]

The issue is whether these companies, who derive a significant amount of money from the present market will be hurt by us closing our sphincter. The answer is obviously yes.

The question you are almost asking is can a business be successful in an isolationist country, and the answer to that is also yes.

The socio-political debate of isolationism versus imperialism, who knows. We're large enough and sheltered enough to pull off isolationism and not be wiped out, perhaps that is the best answer. Is it optimal? I suspect not.

Re:Nothing New

[vovin]

Zuckerberg heads up a PAC which is trying to open up more immigration and H1Bs - because, y'know, he *cares* about the people and it has nothing at all to do with getting cheaper tech labor into the states.

Zuckerberg's desire for H1Bs has nothing to do with the cost of tech labor. Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc., are constantly struggling to find tech labor, not because they aren't willing to shell out the big bucks for qualified talent, but because they struggle to find qualified talent at any price IN MENLO PARK. That labor pool is completely depleted IN MENLO PARK ; there are more positions available than there are people to work them. They're already paying $250K+ (including salary, bonus and stock) for people not much past the new grad stage, and about the same for senior engineers and making it $300K, or $400K, or $1M, won't get them many more new hires once the other companies in the area bump their pay scales to match. cause FB isn't that much better than any other company in SV (Actually, paying *too* much can increase attrition as employees gain sufficient financial independence that they decide to strike out on their own, or simply stop working, so increasing the pay scales could well make their hiring problems even worse.).

The reason the likes of Facebook want H1Bs is because the market for US labor is tapped out, and they want to be able to draw on the rest of the world. It's not about keeping wages down, it's about finding an additional 200 hireable people per week, on top of the 200 they're hiring every week right now. The supply of available American talent IN MENLO PARK isn't keeping up with the demand, and paying more money doesn't appreciably increase the supply.

Just trying to help you clarify your position.
And adding H1B won't help FB/Google et. al. But capping the H1B's given to WiPro/Tata/Infosys/IBM *will*. Or even pushing the H1B minimum wage to FB's 250k (as you say it's their basic wage) the FB/Google et. al will have all the H1B's they want 'cause WiPro/Tata/Infosys/IBM's H1B model will be utterly destroyed and those companies will just pack up and go home.

Re:Nothing New

[phantomfive]

You really think he will build a wall?

Yes, because he wants a monument to himself.

Re:Nothing New

[sjames]

If there was an actual shortage, they would be open to hiring older workers and they would be open to hiring entry level and sending them to school.

They certainly wouldn't be participating in 'no poaching' agreements of questionable legality.

Re:Nothing New

[shawn2772]

And adding H1B won't help FB/Google et. al.

Sure it will. Or reallocating visas from WiPro/Tata/et al. Either one will work.

Or even pushing the H1B minimum wage to FB's 250k (as you say it's their basic wage) the FB/Google et. al will have all the H1B's they want 'cause WiPro/Tata/Infosys/IBM's H1B model will be utterly destroyed and those companies will just pack up and go home.

No need to destroy them to fix the H1B problems, IMO. Heck, I don't think you even need to bump the minimum pay scales up. Just loosen the regulations so that H1B visa holders can easily change employers with very low overhead rather than being locked in. Given the cost and effort involved in sponsoring an H1B, plus language and culture issues, etc., that will give American citizens all the competitive edge they need, while still allowing companies to suck the smart people from the rest of the world (which is good for the US in the long run).

Of course, to the extent that WiPro et al have built a business on being able to exploit H1B lock-in, they'll take a hit, maybe a very large one. It needn't destroy them, though, because there *is* a place for organizations who know how to hire and manage technical people, because most companies don't know how to do it. They should be able to offer a cost-effective service even without slave labor. Though it'll clearly cost more than it does.

Re: Nothing New

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the worst time to put that apostrophe in American's.

Re:Nothing New

[UsuallyReasonable]

I'm sorry, maybe I misread what you said. Did you just say terrorists are imaginary? Because if you did you'd have to be pretty much the biggest moron I've ever seen on slashdot, and that's some heavy competition right there.

Re:Nothing New

[shawn2772]

If there was an actual shortage, they would be open to hiring older workers and they would be open to hiring entry level and sending them to school.

I don't know about Facebook, but if it's similar to Google, they *are* open to hiring older workers (I'm knocking on 50 and they hired me, and I work with engineers in their 60s and one guy in his 70s -- a dude from Bell Labs who is independently wealthy but likes to keep his brain active). As for hiring entry level, it's not clear how you can evaluate a person's ability to be a good SWE until after they've learned the language. Google does do a lot of internships for college students, and even for sophomores/juniors who don't really have their CS chops yet, and those internships include some CS education content. But hiring interns is much safer than hiring full time, because it's a guaranteed short-term contract so it ends painlessly when it doesn't work out. I suspect Silicon Valley companies would do lots more contracting as a way to evaluate potential employees at a lower risk level, but legally it's pretty risky that such contractors end up getting classified as employees en masse which can result in all sorts of legal nightmares.

They certainly wouldn't be participating in 'no poaching' agreements of questionable legality.

Exactly the opposite. The "no poaching" agreements arise specifically because the labor market is tapped out and offering more money to try to bring people in didn't succeed... it just resulted in people bouncing back and forth between companies, getting a raise on their already-high salaries every time. Such ping-ponging raises the labor costs without actually increasing staff, because if Facebook hires an engineer from Apple, that just means Apple has to hire someone from Google to fill that slot, which means Google has to hire someone from Facebook, which leaves every company with exactly the same number of positions to try to fill, but now their current staff is more expensive.

Re:Nothing New

[ranton]

Wow, so now thinking differently than you is a disease? You do have an ego, don't you?

No, I never said that. I disagree vehemently with almost every platform Ted Cruz is running on, but do not feel the same way about his supporters. I have many intelligent Republican friends, and there is a fundamental difference of opinion and moral values between us. I may feel their opinions are misguided, but I understand how our different views on inequality, social justice, and safety net programs shape those opinions.

Trump is another beast all together. I stand by my statements that it takes deep ignorance to be a Trump supporter. Not stupidity, as others have claimed I meant, but certainly ignorance.

Re:Nothing New

[shawn2772]

So how do you explain the prominent cases (not at Facebook or Google, I know) of people training the H1-Bs that replaced them?

I don't need to, because that's unrelated to my point. I never said that no one used H1Bs to get cheap labor, just that Zuckerberg and other CEOs of top tech companies aren't pushing for H1Bs to get cheap labor.

As for the no-poaching, sure, it's a zero sum game but if you might be able to win the game, why agree not to play? If there is a real shortage, pay should be going up. It's basic supply and demand.

I'm not defending the no-poaching agreement, and I have no objection whatsoever to companies getting into bidding wars over exactly the skills I sell -- the more insane the better! I was just explaining that the extremely tight labor market created the environment in which big tech companies realized that poaching just led to ping-pong hiring which benefited none of them, and hence the agreement. You posited that a tight labor market would disincent such agreements, so I explained why that isn't necessarily so.

On the age thing, you may not be seeing the norm there.

I didn't make any claims about Silicon Valley as a whole (I don't live there and don't know that much about it). Nor did I say that Google isn't comprised predominantly of young people, it is. I think the median age is around 30. But there's no bias against older people in Google, at least not in engineering (I can't speak to other areas -- I just don't know). If you're smart, can write code, can solve problems on your feet and are reasonably pleasant to be around, you have a good shot at getting hired, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, etc. I don't doubt that there are some subtle systematic biases that HR either hasn't yet identified or hasn't yet worked out a way to remove from the process, but it's not for lack of trying because they really do want to hire anyone who can do the job.

Not new or unique.

[Junta]

Trump is not the first nor are 'tech' CEOs the only CEOs to play this game.

Nothing New

[KermodeBear]

This is nothing new. Highly successful, rich business people have a long history of trying to affect society and government policy.

Zuckerberg has one thing in common with government

[JoeyRox]

They both like to trample over our privacy for their own gain.

"an insightful story on Buzzfeed News...."

[Stray1]

You lost me....

In the age of Trump "Liberals" love CEOs

[mi]

In the Age of Trump, Tech CEOs Cast Themselves As the New Statesmen

... and the supposed champions of the people are now happy with the corporate influence.

Because some CEOs are more equal than others... Oh, wait, Koch brothers hate Trump too, so let's suspend this campaign.

The noble aim of #NeverTrump justifies all means, does not it? Principles are for wussies anyway...

Re:In the age of Trump "Liberals" love CEOs

[Tailhook]

and that most CEOs would prefer to work with someone that doesn't point out the 7 year zero-percent Fed bubble isn't going to last forever.

FTFY.

the oligarchy

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, kids, the supposed oligarchy is only bad when it's the Koch brothers or other conservatives and libertarians; when it's "the good guys" that promote stuff progressives like, it's A-OK.

I'm disappointed with the political focus, too.

[Anonymous Coward]

On a related note, it looks like the /. editors are caving in to the temptation to post political clickbait articles. It's going to be a long summer.

Things were looking really good for a few weeks after Dice sold the site. We were getting some great submissions on the front page, having to do with relevant subjects like science, math, computing and technology.

But things have started to slide recently. We are seeing more and more submissions about politics, with only very tenuous ties to technology, science, and other relevant topics.

What makes it worse is the anti-Trump slant that nearly every one of these political stories has. I don't even support him, but I don't want to see blatantly biased attacks on him here, either.

Trump clearly represents a lot of Americans, given how much support he has gained across the nation.

His policies aren't even that bad, despite what the media and leftists like to misleadingly claim. Defending the nation's borders and enforcing immigration law are perfectly acceptable and sensible things to be supporting in any nation. Putting an end to flawed and economically-harmful "free" trade is perfectly acceptable and sensible, too.

I come to Slashdot to read news that the mainstream outlets don't do a good job covering. And I don't come to Slashdot to read the irrelevant political claptrap that's all over mainstream sites!

Slashdot is a niche site, like it or not, and its success will come from focusing on that niche and targeting it as well as can be done.

Some fools will come along with the "but $SOME_IRRELEVANT_POLITICAL_ISSUE matters!" nonsense. Well guess what! In the context of Slashdot and its science/math/tech/computing niche, politics and political issues don't matter!

I really wish that Slashdot goes back to objective submissions focusing on relevant math/science/computing/tech, rather than these anti-Trump political attacks we keep seeing.

Re:In the age of Trump?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Unless the Democrats do better than anointing Hillary, his chances are pretty good

Says who? All the polling to date suggests Hillary would wipe the floor with Trump.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

New Zaibatsu

[Shadow IT Ninja]

So maybe we are headed towards having the first American Zaibbatsu. Although, actually, I think the real power of some of these new companies lies in the fact that they are highly multi-national. They can pick and choose different legal systems for different operations. They can choose where different assets and operations are taxed (or not taxed.) Through lobbying and financial muscle they can influence politics. Apple, Google and Microsoft are certainly very powerful in terms of the technologies they have control over and those are technologies which run a large part of the world. Amazon is probably the closest to being structured as a vertical monopoly so, maybe, they will be the first to resemble the classic Zaibatsu except at an international scale.

Re:immigrants

[__aaclcg7560]

Yes, so the native Americans had nothing to worry about.

Never mind that Native Americans came over the Bering Straits back who knows when to settle this side of the world.

Re: The cyberpunk future

[Anonymous Coward]

We may cheer when big corps fight against big governments, but the scary truth is that potentially puts them above the law.

Davos

[Luthair]

"World Economic Forum" - where rich people meet with politicians.

Re:"World Together"

[Tailhook]

Translation: more cheap, family-free, exploitable H1B's for Facebook Inc.

... and the Cooks of the world want their TPP and even less friction for Asian imports.

Trump Derangement Syndrome has liberals singing the praises of corporates.

Italy already tried this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Italy tried the successful CEO route. They elected TV mogul Silvio Berlosconi to prime minister 4 times!

Suffice it to say, it didn't turn out so well. Italy has massive unemployment and massive debt.

Running a country is completely different from running a company. You can't just fire people when you don't agree with them, or make sweeping changes because you think it's the right course of action. Countries aren't just big corporations. The sooner people get this through their head, the better.

Meh, who gives a rats ass

[Virtucon]

"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me." John 10:27

Big Companies can inspire us to move forward

[postmortem]

By paying their fair share of taxes, and not using tax havens.

Re:The Golden Rule

[Captain Splendid]

Oh Christ, can we bury this bullshit once and for all? Slashdot has had political articles since forever, bitching that it's something new reveals your ignorance, not some sort of mission creep.

Ephemeral polling

[Okian Warrior]

>> Unless the Democrats do better than anointing Hillary, his chances are pretty good

Says who? All the polling to date suggests Hillary would wipe the floor with Trump.
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

The amusing thing about polling data is that they are so ephemeral.

Why, if we had the election in November, we could have elected Carson!

And at that same time, Nate Silver was predicting Rubio would get the nomination, because endorsements are a much better predictor than polling data, dontcha' know.

A couple of months ago polls gave Trump a 70% chance of winning the nomination, now he's a coin flip.

The problem with relying on polling data is that it makes the assumption that the election would be held right now. While that might be useful for future planning, it still has assumptions.

Not the least of which is that Trump hasn't been focusing on the general election at all, so he's been letting Clinton slide (until recently). Or that the media is lumping all polling data together, when it's well known that some polls are biased.

I read an analysis which posited a list of things that would turn the election around for Trump, and virtually *none* of them are in Clinton's direct control. Such as:

1) Another terrorist attack
2) Clinton gets indicted
3) The US *declines* to indict Clinton
4) Clinton collapses due to stress/exhaustion
5) Trump stops being provocative and gets a more presidential attitude
6) Trump makes some common-sense promises, such as to fix airport security and simplify the tax code
7) Trump starts spending money on the campaign, instead of relying on free publicity

I forget what the other three were, but they definitely weren't something Clinton could affect.

If the polling data were that accurate, we wouldn't need to have an election at all

...except for that pesky thing about how the results keep changing.

What in the flying fuck?

[tom229]

Two weeks ago Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella told attendees of the company's annual Build developers conference of plans to "move our society forward," asking "profound questions" of his developers:"Is technology empowering people or is it displacing us? Is technology helping us preserve our enduring values such as privacy, or is it compromising it?"

What in the flying fuck? Microsoft knows exactly the negative impacts technology is, and has been, having on user freedom and privacy. They've been on the wrong side of this debate for at least 2 decades now. This man is either incredibly stupid or incredibly evil.

Count, pointer count

[Okian Warrior]

No need to attribute to plutocratic machinations that which can be adequately explained by logic. [...]

So Donald Trump is POTUS. You wake up in the morning, and legitimately wonder if today President Trump is going to:

Okay, wait.

Each of these would benefit the people of this nation. Directly, immediately, and clearly.

- Begin a campaign of mass deportations:
Translate: more jobs for citizens
- Decide we shake down Mexico for billions of dollars and divert significant steel and cement production to build a big ass wall;
Translate: prevent illegal immigration, lessen some conflicts in border states, make construction jobs available
- Decide to cut an entire federal agency;
Translate: reduce the deficit
- Decide to end a major work visa program;
Translate: citizens keep their high-tech jobs, don't have the indignity of training their replacement
- Simultaneously shit on the tourism industry and the Constitution by announcing an entire religion is forbidden from entering the country
Translate: temporarily make us feel safe

(Also, declining tourism? Have you noticed the effect DHS has had on our tourism?)

- Say some offhanded ridiculous thing that makes it harder for people in $your_industry to do business here or abroad;
Counter: something that sounds bad, but that businesses abroad don't care about

- Say something cute about [minorities/women/Muslims/poor people/some other group he thinks are 'total losers"] that paints America and American businesses in a bad light;
Counter: As opposed to, for example, putting Muslims in a gulag indefinitely, torturing prisoners, bringing down democratically-elected governments?

- Embarrass the country; act like running the country is a reality TV show;
Counter: I suppose that depends on what your definition of "is" is. (Elect his wife!)

- Try to shout over, or interfere with, or shut down a media outlet that's giving him problems;
Counter: baseless conjecture. "Shouting over" is something his protesters do.

- Refuse to raise the debt ceiling and/or let us default on some obligations;
Translate: force the government to reduce the debt

- Cause worldwide condemnation and mutiny by ordering our armed forces to kill terrorists' family members;
I'll give you that one.

- Pull troops out of Japan and South Korea and try to hand them nukes to make up for it;
Translate: Implement a cheaper solution that gets us out of a potential conflict area, letting us divert resources to fixing our own problems.

Regardless of what kind of job he's done running his own private sector interests, his unpredictability and volatility (a source of personal pride for him) would cause perpetual fear and chaos in the global economy.

I'm sorry, I thought the president would be concerned with the interests of Americans!

I didn't realize the welfare of non-citizens were more important that the lives of our own.

Re:Count, pointer count

[flopsquad]

Breaking that down:

The parts where you say "Translate" are, at least, positions. Some of your rebuttals evidence a fundamental misapprehension of economics, business, and geopolitics, but they are nonetheless positions on which we can differ.

The parts you call "Counter" are... not even? For example, Trump talking shit about $minorityGroup is not countered nor even distracted from by alluding to Guantanamo Bay, torture, or CIA meddling in foreign governments.

Even ignoring that what you're arguing there bears no resemblance to what I said, Trump is cool with torture, and wants to fill Gitmo back up.
Translate: Hell yeah, man! Let's peel the skin off those jihadi bastards!
(I kid!!)

Re:"World Together"

[Tablizer]

I've seen H1B horror stories with my own beady little eyes. I don't have to depend on politicians to know the program is FUBAR.

Trump is a one show pony

[OpinOnion]

This is not an era of celebrity political power. It's one election where the GOP yet against failed to put up any viable candidates and spent the last 8 years programming their supporters with propaganda about how bad the country is and how horrible Obama and basically all liberal are. They have spent billions of dollars over the last 30+ years to push this narrative every year and propaganda does work. This is nothing more than a leadership and talent vacuum in the GOP that allowed someone like Trump to opportunistically jump in at a very weak point for the GOP. The GOP entirely did this to themselves, but that is beside the fact. Trump's honeymoon won't last more than one election cycle because he is going to lose to Cruz and then if he runs third party he will lose to Hilary because the GOP votes will be split and there is zero chance of a victory that way, even against Sanders neither Cruz nor Trump running side by side would beat Hilary or Sanders. It's really all up to Trump if he wants to give Cruz a shot at winning by stepping out or if more likely based on his persona Trump will want to keep his supporters, particularly because the GOP is working against him to support Cruz and plans on winning in a rather unfair way. That will only give fuel to Trump potential third party run and he may as well go ahead and brand a political party while he is at it.. even if only for one election cycle. It will make more money for him if he brands it. I don't think the Trump Party is a smart move though. Cruz and the GOP can only pray that Trump backs out after he loses the delegate count. After this cycle Trump will lose half or more of those GOP voters, though not soon enough for the GOP and Cruz to not get destroyed in the Presidency and maybe in congressional races, especially if we have two conservative candidates in the General fighting each other. Trump isn't the kind of guy to backdown, but in this case he has no good options. He can't beat Hilary and the GOP, not even close. He doesn't even have half the GOP voters.

It's all a show!

[gabrieltss]

Hillary was chosen for the next president back in 2008. Remember that "secret" meeting between Hillary and Obama? The one they met in Chantilly Virginia.... The same place Bilderburg was meeting at that exact same day.. Hillary was promised to get the next presidential nod if she let Obama get the nomination and she step down.

Think about this. Obama has said she won't be prosecuted for her email CRIMES. Then we find out that Trumps daughter is friends with Chelsey. Hell the Clinton and the Bush families are good friends too - go lookup the news stories... Trump is friends with the Clinton's we have all see the pictures.... The whole "fued" stuff is utter crap! I don't know how anyone CAN'T see through it.

The whole Trump/Cruz thing is a ruse to make people think they have a choice. Please..... It doesn't matter WHO the republicans appoint (regardless of peoples votes).

These Tech guys are just throwing money away. Trump has no chance in hell of even getting the nomination. The RNC has said so. The RNC won't let Cruz be the ma either... This just shows they "tech giants" are plain stupid as hell.Go ahead waste your time, effort and money.