Former HP CEO and Republican Meg Whitman – who split HP with mixed success – says Donald Trump can't run a business

Former HPE chief exec and former Republican candidate for governor of California Meg Whitman has said she will support Joe Biden over Donald Trump in the upcoming US presidential election. Whitman appeared via video link at the first day of the virtual Democratic National Convention alongside three other prominent Republicans …

[DS999]

Whitman would be better off promoted as former eBay CEO

These days I'll bet they have better name recognition in the US than Hewlett Packard. I suppose two failed HP CEOs would know a failed CEO in Trump when they see one. Not that HP necessarily could have been saved, the rot was already well underway before either came onto the scene.

[DutchBasterd]

Re: Whitman would be better off promoted as former eBay CEO

Dunning-Kruger much? I'd say that failed CEO's have absolutely no clue about how they themselves failed, let alone another one, who was so succesful that he became president. 4 more years!

[DS999]

Re: Whitman would be better off promoted as former eBay CEO

so succesful corrupt that he became president

Fixed it for you.

[Bbuckley]

Re: Whitman would be better off promoted as former eBay CEO

Two failed 'women leaders' vote for the opposition. Why is that not a surprise!

[9Rune5]

China

Whitman and co's opposition to Trump seems unrelated to the Trump administration's heavy-handed tech policy, especially towards China.

Do Biden and his guys have a stated opinion on China?

My perception of Hillary was that she focused on belittling Trump, and did not talk much about her own alternatives. I hope Biden will be different.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: China

I hope Biden will be different.

Not much sign of it so far, his platform seems to be essentially "Vote for me, I'm not Trump".

Last time round the Democrats should have won easily, with Trump as their opponent, but they still managed to pull a losing candidate out of their hat. It would be nice to think they could do better this time round, but Trump does have the usual advantage of being the incumbent: "better the devil you know". Biden needs to be much more than just "not Trump" to have a decent chance.

[Tom 38]

Re: China

You can see the 46 different things on Biden's platform plans for trade/China, for instance.

[9Rune5]

Re: China

@Tom 38, so I followed your link to Biden's web page.

Then I hit ctrl+F and searched for "trade" and finally "China". This is the only hit:

The world is facing inescapable challenges: a rapidly changing climate, the risk of nuclear conflict, trade wars, a rising China and an aggressive Russia, millions of refugees seeking shelter and security, and attacks on universal human rights and fundamental freedoms. The next president must repair our relationships with our allies and stand up to strongmen and thugs on the global stage to rally the world to meet these challenges. We can reclaim our longstanding position as the moral and economic leader of the world.

This is an excellent example of what I was getting at. If Joe has any ideas of his own, it certainly does not show!

"risk of nuclear conflict" -- FUD.

"repair relationships" -- sure, but _how_?

"meet these challenges" -- again: _how_? So far, meeting the challenge of e.g. climate change, seems to involve more unemployment

"economic leader" -- so, reinstating NAFTA again? Or are there better ideas floating around?

This is a politician who has clearly forgotten how to treat his (potential) voters.

I suspected the situation was bad, but not this bad. :( A blank vote might be the better option here.

[Pascal Monett]

Re: the Democrats should have won easily

That is something I will never get. Trump is by far the candidate that the Democrats should have mopped the floor with. Where were the attack ads on his failures, multiple bankruptcies, cheating, prostitutes and pussy-grabbing ?

I don't remember hearing anything about all that.

The Democrats had the ammo to bury Trump alive, yet they did nothing.

It's like they let it happen on purpose.

[Blank Reg]

Re: the Democrats should have won easily

Well there is a good chance that trump's tenure will destroy the republican party for a generation. Maybe they were playing the long game.

Or maybe they just couldn't believe that there really were enough voters stupid enough to vote for trump. his incompetent was obvious, no one who wasn't a complete moron should have voted for him, and we're getting exactly what I expected from him.

[Dr Scrum Master]

Re: the Democrats should have won easily

Calling half the electorate stupid is a major reason why Trump is likely to win.

[Blank Reg]

Re: the Democrats should have won easily

just because they don't like being called stupid doesn't make it not true.

don't do stupid things and you won't be called stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: the Democrats should have won easily

Hmmm stupid things...

Like Obamacare?

Like Paris Accord?

Oh wait... build cages to house children and then when Trump uses the same facility show pictures taken during the Obama administration. (To make matters worse... Mrs Obama referenced that in her speech. Ooops! AP called her out.)

Blame COVID-19 on the Europeans. (Biden said that)

Oh there is so much more...

Trump may not be the most elegant speaker or even a nice guy...

But when you consider:

* Prison Reform - reversing the long mandatory incarceration for drug related crimes

* Israel - UAE formal relations

* US Economy... but lets face it Obama/Biden screwed that one up.

* USMCA - (NAFTA 2.0)

* Warming relations w Norks (At least we go US remains back from the war [police action])

Considering that Trump has been spied upon by Obama's WH during the campaign and after.

The whole trumped up impeachment farce.

Yeah... Biden's a shoe in.

Now what has Joe Biden done?

Oh yes... creep joe and his stories about corn pop and how he inappropriately touches and smells women.

Biden? go back to his time in the Senate if you want to know the real joe.

[TheMeerkat]

Re: the Democrats should have won easily

So stop calling people who voted Trump “stupid”, because it is a stupid thing to do.

[Bbuckley]

Re: the Democrats should have won easily

Your opinion of 'stupid' is obviously not there's. Maybe you should reflect on that.

[jason_derp]

Re: the Democrats should have won easily

"Calling half the electorate stupid is a major reason why Trump is likely to win."

For the average American: The electorate is the name given to the population able to vote.

I'm going to argue that's worth an hour of community service to my parole officer. And somebody owes me a tax receipt.

[Bbuckley]

Re: the Democrats should have won easily

Or maybe they really are as stupid as they look?

[MachDiamond]

Re: the Democrats should have won easily

There hasn't been a high quality candidate from any part for many years. Ross Perot might have been interesting since he ran as an independent. There are many other political parties in the US that would have put themselves in the spotlight if they could have fielded a candidate that isn't a whackadoodle. Honestly, there are plenty of competent people that aren't D. Trump or J. Biden and how hard would it really have been to find one and get them some exposure?

Be prepared for President Trump to be in office for another 4 years. Joe Biden is not going to make it and on the slim chance that he does, his declining faculties will mean that he'll be ousted before his first year is over using the same arguments and the 25th Amendment to justify the sack that were tried on President Trump (all done while Congress ignored the Corona Virus getting a foothold). That leaves his very Left Vice President in the top job. The big question is who the Democrats are planning on boosting into the VP slot. That should be a big concern. There is a big crowd of staunch Socialists hanging around the office.

Trump may not be the world's favorite, but he can still remember his wife and important dates, family members, etc. Mr Biden's ads, that can be recorded until they are good, show he's having a hard time forming complete sentences. His team doesn't even have enough material to wangle a good edit from. This is the guy the rest of the world wants to be in control of "The Button" and the head of military forces? That could be a good reason for a rethink.

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: not hearing

Well obviously you heard, as did I. People who watch only Fox might not have but Trump voters that actually got the message did not care. Hillary did bring up Alicia Machado but that was weak sauce when put alongside Trump boasting about barging into the girls' changing rooms during his beauty contests. Whatever Hillary said, Trump came out with something even more shocking about himself that got him more covfefe.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Flock of Kroes Re: not hearing

Many people watch Fox.

The reason is that MSNBC, CNN and the other MSM sites have been found to clearly not report on the news or distort it to spite Trump.

I really don't care for the religious right views, but Fox does a better job when it comes to reporting and allows things to be heard.

Lets talk about the DNC dog and pony show. Throughout the entire event, they said Trump brought in the military and militarized police units against peaceful protesters.

They seem to gloss over the ANTIFA activities, and the murders, and damage caused by said 'peaceful protesters'.

NOTE: This is not to say that my friend, his girlfriend who marched in protest in Chicago at the start of the protests were not peaceful. They were. But my friend and his girlfriend bailed when things started to hint at turning ugly. Nobody cares about a march down Michigan (Mag Mile) in protest. They do care when it becomes a riot and looting.

Or lets talk about the good guy who came to the aid of a transgender woman getting assaulted and robbed. A guy caught the whole thing on tape where the man was attacked and beaten, (not fighting back) all because he came to the aid of someone.

All of that was missing from the DNC and Democrats are silent on the violence.

That's why you see people not voting for Biden.

And then there's Biden's promises that will bankrupt the country... while Hunter profits.

;-)

[Lon24]

Re: @Flock of Kroes not hearing

"They seem to gloss over the ANTIFA activities, and the murders, and damage caused by said 'peaceful protesters'."

I'm sure there's a word for anti-anti-facists. If only I could remember it ...

[Bbuckley]

Re: @Flock of Kroes not hearing

Democrats. Not US "Democrats". Actual democrats.

[fajensen]

Re: @Flock of Kroes not hearing

And then there's Biden's promises that will bankrupt the country... while Hunter profits.

As long as the totally voluntary, with unending bipartisan support, and even public fawning over it, millitary expenditures can continue to grow at a rate of 5%/p.a. it is pretty damn silly to imagine *anything else* that will "bankrupt the country"!

The biggest exponent crushes "the rest", so "the rest" dosen't matter - IT-Angle: O-notation.

[MachDiamond]

Re: @Flock of Kroes not hearing

"t is pretty damn silly to imagine *anything else* that will "bankrupt the country"!"

How about government employee pensions that are guaranteed to reap an 8%/P.A. return regardless of how well the fund's investments have done? How about a health care system that allows non-citizens and non-residents unlimited health care for free when that same deal is not available to native born? Unlimited immigration along with public benefits.

I do agree that military spending is off the hook and getting worse. The US does not need to have military bases on foreign soil. I'm sure the people around the bases on Okinawa wouldn't mind seeing the round eyes pack up and leave rather than brawling in local bars after 5 too many cups of Sake.

[Xalran]

Re: the Democrats should have won easily

No point wasting money burying the Orange Clown. He can bury himself on his own...

He's already managed to dig a pretty nice hole and jump at the bottom of it.

[J. Cook]

Re: the Democrats should have won easily

I think part of it is that they are acting like they have higher morals. In addition, there was enough in-fighting within the DNC during the last election which pretty much prevented a unified front, which is what they absolutely must do this year.

Personally, I don't like either candidate, but I'd rather take an unknown with morals than the lying, narcissistic, sociopathic impeached crook we currently have.

[Bbuckley]

Re: the Democrats should have won easily

Understandable. But the "Democrats" (quotes deliberate) have extreme left-wing nutters like "AOC" and the "Squad". Frankly, I think Trump is an asshole but the AOC and Squad are not only equally assholes, they are a danger to the Real World! My vote goes to the Orangina over the Moronic Soviets.

[DiViDeD]

Re: the Democrats should have won easily

I'd hesitate to describe the most extreme "left wing" american politician as anything other than slightly to the right of Attilla the Hun. Although US media figures keep referring to "communism" and "socialism" in their commentaery pieces, it soon becomes obvious that they know nothing about these terms apart from their use in scaring other americans who also have no idea what these terms mean,

Cue the "Hah! Why don't you go and live in the socialist hellhole of <insert popular strawman here> since you like it so much?" - I don't think you'll need to wait too long.

[Snake]

Re: "It's like they let it happen on purpose"

I 100% agree and have been saying so for quite a while now. The liberals, progressives and even moderates do the very least amount necessary to forward their cause, all the while conservatives do just about anything they want, from both verbal AND physical threats/attacks.

WaPo has an article today, "Fed up with anti-maskers, mask advocates are demanding mandates, fines — and common courtesy", showing backlash against the aggressively mostly-conservatives anti-maskers. Hey, it took ONLY 3 months for non-conservatives to say "Enough is enough!", eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

@Pascal Re: the Democrats should have won easily

You really don't understand what's going on, do you?

Trump is winning because of what he does, not what he says.

Everything that Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff ,etc accuse Trump of doing.. they've already done it and worse.

Trump puts in a political backer who happens to be a good businessman to help turn the post office around. Post Office gets no funding from US, revenue only from stamps/shipping.

Post Office losing money.

So the guy cuts OT and wants to change how they deliver mail. Makes sense...right? Cut expenses make Post Office more efficient? But that's where he's getting attacked.

Removing mail boxes? Obama did that.

Voting by mail makes sense if done correctly. Dems aren't doing that Look at some of the previous primary elections. 6 weeks after election a winner is declared. Oh yeah. How would that play out for a national election.

Absentee ballots are different, and some states have vote by mail in place and have been doing it for years. (Colorado) But that's not the problem. Dumping it on other states who are not prepared... that's the recipie for disaster and the Dems want disaster so that they can blame Trump.

Trumps only crime was in beating Clinton.

[MachDiamond]

Re: @Pascal the Democrats should have won easily

"Voting by mail makes sense if done correctly. "

I differ with you on that. There are too many easy ways to corrupt the process using the mails. I suggest that the vote is spread over several days to lower the congestion at polling places and require that polling places are at facilities such as city/school gyms with lots of room to spread out and have people enter one door and exit via another. This way, ballots are secured from blanks to the locked collection box and not subject to being harvested from mail vans, facilities and letter boxes. There is also the matter of maintaining a secret vote. If the ballots can be strictly monitored, there is no reason to put identifying information on it. Another option is that ballots are able to be printed at home and deposited at a polling place after verifying the person is eligible. I usually take my sample ballot with me and use to fill in the official one.

[DiViDeD]

Re: @Pascal the Democrats should have won easily

Is that what political discourse has become? "My candidate may be a lying, self serving weasel, but so is yours"?

If others have done bad things, does that justify your side doing the same bad things? Is any criticism of some bloody awful policies to be trumped (no pun intended by the response that other people have had stupid policies and then dismissed in some perverse logic of QED?

Pardon my Klatchian, but fuck that for a game of soldiers.

[TheMeerkat]

Re: the Democrats should have won easily

May be it does but look as bad when you don’t read Guardian, BBC or CNN?

[Lon24]

Re: the Democrats should have won easily

"May be it does but look as bad when you don’t read Guardian, BBC or CNN?"

Or even worse if you factcheck his Tweets or just try and read the transcripts of his 'speeches'? Mind you, Boris is competing hard in that department.

I guess many don't remember the day politicians of any hue could put together an elegant and logical string of words that actually made sense at both the intellectual and emotional levels whether you agreed or not. Indeed that was the basic requirement of being a national leader of the country and political discourse.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: China

his platform seems to be essentially "Vote for me, I'm not Trump"

To be fair, it's a line with a lot to recommend it.

[Hollerithevo]

Re: China

Works for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Dr. Syntax Re: China

I chose the Grammar Nazi icon just for you...

Vote for Biden out of hate of Trump?

That's going to get you 39% of the vote +- 5%.

About the same for the pro Trump crowd. (They are under counted btw)

Its the independents like me that you have to convince to vote for your candidate.

And most like me are going to vote for who is going to do the better job and protect my wallet and future.

That's not Biden.

Its funny watching John Kasich talk at the DNC.

His parents were Dems and friends of his (fraternity brothers) who knew him weren't the most kind in describing him. (FD: I too am a fraternity brother, albeit a decade or so later.)

Kasich never forgave Trump for winning the GOP primary. I actually was going to vote for Kasich if he won and he would have crushed Hillary. I met Kasich while an undergrad when he came back to visit. Had an interesting conversation over beers.

But I digress. The point is that the never Trumpers are a minority in the GOP. Not enough. Trump is gaining the black vote, the hispanic vote too. Everyone wants to criticize Trump over COVID. But guess what? None of those who are criticizing him would have done better. They would have done worse. Go back and see how they were critical when he shut down travel from Asia. Later they said he should have done it sooner. I don't know anyone who would do a perfect job. Just ask Gov Cuomo and the high number of senior citizens in nursing homes who died because of his actions.

[Intractable Potsherd]

Re: @Dr. Syntax China

"... most like me are going to vote for who is going to do the better job and protect my wallet and future."

Whereas people with scruples would vote for who is going to do the better job of protecting the wallets and futures of everyone, especially the poor. The trouble is, there isn't anyone like that either in the USA or here in the UK.

[Intractable Potsherd]

Re: @Dr. Syntax China

I ran out of time to edit my post. I wanted to add that, if I had to choose between Trump and whoever his running-mate and Biden and his "new family member", I'd be voting for Trump. There is something deeply unpleasant about the Democrats' offering that inspires less trust than even Trump, which is an awful thing to say given that another term of of Trumpian excess and bloviation will take more than a century to wash away. If the Democrats *really* couldn't find anyone better to stand, then they are on their way out, politically.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Phil Re: China

Biden lost to Clinton before Clinton ran.

Think about that for a second.

Biden's not all there. Former WHY physician to Obama tells all.

Trump won for two reasons...

1) He's not a swamp dweller so he's a change element.

2) He was a better choice than Clinton

[DiViDeD]

Re: China

"Vote for me, I'm not Trump"

Sounds to me like that's reason enough.

[AMBxx]

Re: China

The one thing that isn't discussed enough - Trump is clearly unsuitable to be President, so how awful must Mrs Clinton be to lose?

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: How to lose

Step one: Trust your polling - it is probably wrong by about 3% in a random direction. Before Trump got elected plenty of people were too embarrassed to admit to supporting him so the error was probably bigger showing extra false support Hillary.

Step two: Ignore Robert Mercer. Democrats had excellent 'Get out the vote' software that did an amazing job for Obama (worth about 6% which was included in the polling predictions). Republicans had pathetic 'Get out the vote' for Mitt Romney and its failings were widely reported in the press at the time. Trump was making plenty of profit from his 'self funded' campaign and did not want to waste any of it on pointless software as he expected to lose. At the last minute Mercer brought out good quality software that got Trump an extra 6% that was not accounted for.

Step three: Go for a landslide victory. Clinton based her spending decisions on the defective polling data. That money pushed the vote about 3% in states were Trump actually had a 6% lead. If she had aimed for a minimal win a 3% push in the actual marginal states would have been sufficient for a win.

Step four: Misunderstand social media. Trump was much better at this than Clinton. Stupid outnumbers smart by a large margin. Republican leaders have understood the for decades and trained their candidates to act stupid to get the stupid vote while expecting the smart voters to recognise that the nominee is only acting. Trump is a natural and did not require any training. Republican leadership decided that if the joke candidate got elected he would be too dumb to stop them doing whatever they wanted and would create insane headlines every week that would cover their activity.

Those four steps take you most of the way towards losing but Clinton also had help from Democrat voters. As a Clinton victory was assured, Democrats decided it was safe to not bother voting or vote Bernie, NOTA or some other protest that was counted as abstention.

Next Republican voters get their news from Fox (unless they are deep state loonies who read Breitbart). Those two places missed out little details like the secretary of state running her own email server was legal at the time (although it would have been sensible to have it administered by someone competent), did not hold top secret documents (some got a higher restriction level later) and this was confirmed from another source (the investigation that stared shortly before election day but completed afterwards). GWB43.com was not legal and the emails deleted from that server have never been recovered.

The Russians were utterly convinced Trump would lose. Their strategy was to sow discord to keep people in their own echo chambers. Republicans would only hear each other and believe that when Trump lost it must be because deep state rigged the elections. When the results came in, the Internet Research Agency had to hastily re-target their 'not my president' message to get the violent protests they wanted.

[oiseau]

Re: How to lose

Stupid outnumbers smart by a large margin. Republican leaders have understood the for decades and trained their candidates to act stupid to get the stupid vote ...

+1

It is a worldwide thing, not only in the US.

See the UK or Brazil (just to name two), for example.

O.

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: How to lose

Flocke Kroes,

The National polling was broadly correct. It said Clinton would win by a few points, she did. She got the most votes, but piled too many up in states that she had already won. And didn't campaign enough in the Midwest - where she eventually lost too many states.

Now the national polling may have been wrong earlier in the campaign, when it showed Trump being miles behind. Causing a false sense of security, and the Clinton campaign to put too much money into normally Republican states in order to get a landslide. Or she may have been that far ahead, and the voters changed their minds - as Trump started to campaign more seriously and all the emails got drip-fed into the news cycle.

That's the problem with polls of course. Even when they get it right on the day, that still doesn't guarantee that they were right during the campaign. Was there a real change in opinion or did the polls just get better as they were more frequent as the big day approached? Equally this can be true when an election is polled incorrectly - but the polls could have been broadly accurate for the years before that - but missed movement in voter sentiment in the last days of the campaign.

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: National polls

I totally ignored the national polls as they are irrelevant to the US presidency. IIRC polls by state for the last month of the election were reasonably consistent - and compared to the election results were a a few percent wrong showing more support for Hillary than she actually had. There were poll results showing Trump would win. Much to my shame I ignored them because they were on sites focusing on Emails, Benghazi and saying Hillary was Satan. Scott Adams said a bunch of things about how voters feel that I dismissed as being insane but turned out to be correct. A great deal of news is slanted to fit the preconceptions of the audience. At the time I had no idea how well this is done. Clearly me and Scott were in thoroughly isolated bubbles.

Although I have great respect for the statisticians organising polls the staff actually conducting the polls that have contacted me showed a clear preference for how they thought I should answer. If the Democrats hired like-minded pollsters it could have skewed the results because some Trump supporters would not have admitted their support. The poll results clearly showed Hillary could aim for a landslide.

Lots of people make up their minds long before the election. Plenty of the undecideds only show an interest in the election a few days in advance when election news is unavoidable. By that time it was Emails, Emails, more Emails and also Emails. Little things like the Trump University scam, barging into the girls changing rooms, bribing a district attorney, multiple bankruptcies, up to his ears in debt to Putin, building a wall to protect one of his golf courses from rising sea levels and so on were all old news. If you spent a little effort looking you could find a hundred disasters for the Trump campaign with no focus on any particular ten but without that effort: Emails, Emails, ... Lock her up.

I tried looking for the wall today. First glance: Trump has built nearly 100 miles of wall and is about to build 400 more. Second look: Trump has repaired 80 miles of wall, built 16 new miles (some of which fell down), taken credit for a bit built by Obama and is unlikely to get funding for more (and would need to use eminent domain to get the land to build it on). There is actually a possibility of Mexico paying for a few feet of wall. The cost is oil production. To reduce the glut all oil production has to be cut back. Trump has promised that the US will cut back by more than its fair share so Mexico does not have to.The news is there if you look for it. If you don't, you will get Trump's foot in mouth issue of the week until a few days before the election when Trump will focus on some made up bullshit like "Biden was born in Botswana" - only more insane - and that will be the news until the election is over.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: National polls

Those polls will not be accurate.

If they poll a Trump supporter, the Trump supporter will not share his/her opinion.

In the US where we're supposed to welcome free speech, just wearing a MAGA hat is cause to drive some to assault.

Think about that for second.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Sparty... Re: How to lose

Many here are not Yanks and do not understand the electoral college. Even some Yanks here don't quite grok that concept either.

Trump won because Hillary was the worse option.

Trump will win again, because Biden is worse than Clinton as an option.

If the Dems want to beat Trump, bring a better candidate.

What many don't know because the MSM totally ignored it... Clinesmith pleads guilty to the charge of doctoring an email from the CIA that identifies Carter Page as an asset.

To be clear, this is just one element of the case against the Obama Administration spying on Trump's campaign. Obama's WH, including Biden had already weaponized the IRS to attack Republican groups. (This is well documented... go google Lois Lerner who escaped prosecution thanks to Obama's AG)

This is the weaponizing of the FBI and other actors within the Executive branch.

While many may claim I should wear a tin foil hat, I suggest that you actually read what is coming out about the FBI and their actions.

While Barr/Durham do not see Biden as a target for criminal prosecution, one has to ask about his involvement.

For those who watched the DNC show the other night.... they all ignored the violence.

You don't have to be a Trump supporter to call that out. Just live in NYC, Chicago, Portland or Seattle.

[MachDiamond]

Re: How to lose

"The National polling was broadly correct. It said Clinton would win by a few points, she did."

There was a map of votes for Hillary after the election displayed as topographic. She won the largest cities and not much else. This is what the founders of the US had been afraid of, the largest cites dictating the government. Some states that were painted blue were that way due to one or two major cities dominating. A candidate that wins an overwhelming number of votes in Atlanta can win the whole state regardless of how all of the other residents vote. I can't remember if it was Georgia that was that way or another state, but there were a couple. A lot of polling is done in major cities which can mean they have very skewed results. The numbers don't have to have a bigger error bar than expected by much to be wrong about a tight race. The 2016 Presidential election was a big surprise for a lot of people.

If Joe Biden is allowed to speak much and certainly if he's allowed completely off script, he's in big trouble.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: China

how awful must Mrs Clinton be to lose?

Several things come to mind, in no particular order:

- If she hadn't been married to President Bill, would anyone have ever heard of her? She seems to have been a competent local senator, not much more.

- There was some concern that this was just a way to get BillC back into the White House by the back door. Personally I'm not convinced that was a valid concern, but some voters were.

- She's a woman, and there's still a part of the US voting population that finds the idea of a female president even less acceptable than a black one.

Biden at least scores better on the second two points.

[jelabarre59]

Re: China

- If she hadn't been married to President Bill, would anyone have ever heard of her? She seems to have been a competent CORRUPT local senator, not much more.

There, FTFY

[Hollerithevo]

Re: China

Some examples of this corruption, please, or it didn't happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: China

Whitewater?

Cattle futures?

That was her before Clinton went to WH.

Want to go on? Clinton Foundation?

[Jellied Eel]

Re: China

There was some concern that this was just a way to get BillC back into the White House by the back door. Personally I'm not convinced that was a valid concern, but some voters were.

I hadn't heard that one, but I'm fairly certain as First Gentleman(?), he wouldn't have to use the tradesperson's entrance. I do think there was some guilt by assosciation though around Bill's antics. I think there were bigger problems with the contrast between the Clinton Foundation's antics, and campaigning on helping 'ordinary Americans'. And then there was mud slinging over Haiti, Libya and of course the DNC and email 'hacks'. The tech aspects would probably have only a minor impact, but not sure wiping a server with a cloth fits with a supposedly sharp woman.. And of course her opponents seized on that. The bigger issue may have been the suggested dirty tricks used against Sanders to secure the Clinton nomination.

By contrast, Trump started with name recognition. It's on all his properties after all, and he'd been on TV telling people they're fired. The 'self-made' billionaire who'd make America great again vs the billionaires who'd made their money from their political service. Of course there were problems with this, and over here, Private Eye had been reporting on Trump's business dealings for decades. Easily spun though. Bankrupt? It's the American dream. Deal with it, come back stronger and leave the problem to Deutsche Bank. What a guy! Or what timing. Especially now given being President comes with some shielding, and real estate is taking quite a kicking during the current pandemic. But he was the plucky under dog, promising to fight the system and MAGA, versus the establishment.

Biden at least scores better on the second two points.

I'm not sure he does. He seems a bit gaffe prone, which his opponents will seize on. He's also establishment vs the swamp guy. He's made some.. unfortunate statements wrt women and race.. And there's the whiff of corruption. Dems had Russigate, Republicans have Ukraine, and dubious goings on there. And then there's the hint of political warfare used against Trump during his campaign with the possibility of illegal wiretaps that have shades of Nixon.

But such is politics, sadly. Mud will be slung from both sides, and Americans will have 4 more years of political divides & arguments about who won.

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: gaffe prone, unfortunate statements wrt women and race..

I thought those sorts of things have become vote winners in the last few years.

[MachDiamond]

Re: China

"By contrast, Trump started with name recognition. It's on all his properties after all"

A bunch of those properties aren't his anymore. When somebody makes a claim about Trump bankruptcies, they need to fact check the newsie to make sure it isn't a business that he isn't a part of any more. I remember a couple of properties where a judge declared the subsequent owner of the property could continue using the Trump name since it was a big part of the value of the purchase.

Ukraine? Which issue. The Dems have the problem with Hunter and daddy Joe using influence there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: China

Had she won... they would have sold our country to the highest bidder.

While everyone talks about Russia and their interference....

They are silent on China's interference. Just as the Clintons about a couple of their bundlers about China.

[MachDiamond]

Re: China

"- If she hadn't been married to President Bill, would anyone have ever heard of her? She seems to have been a competent local senator, not much more."

She wouldn't have been elected as a senator if she wasn't the wife of a former President.

[disgruntled yank]

Re: China

Illusions about Hillary Clinton, on both sides.

A lot of people invested a lot of time, money, and energy over 24 years arguing that she was the Queen of Night. Numerous people, paid by the US to know better, spent a lot of time trying to prove that she had murdered an assistant.

On the other hand, a lot of people supposed that because she was married to a politician she was one too. The first time she ran in a contested election, the Democratic caucuses and primaries of 2008, a young guy with very little experience beat her like a drum. Somehow this made her inevitable for 2016.

[Boo Radley]

Re: China

Remember, she won the popular vote by 3 million votes. It's the electoral college that Trump won, unfortunately.

[Anonymous Coward]

Asset stripper

He's an asset stripper, he takes a business, strips its assets as private profit by drawing off a lot of license fees for 'Trump' branding, and dumps the loss making shell into bankruptcy. Sometimes its a casino, or a condo complex, this time is the USA that's being asset stripped.

The problem is the Russian buyers here:

https://forensicnews.net/2020/01/03/trump-deutsche-bank-loans-underwritten-by-russian-state-owned-bank-whistleblower-told-fbi/

You cannot have someone stripping the USA of all its treaties and markets and defenses and selling those to an enemy state. Politics aside, Republicans need to side with America.

Just for once, party above country.

'Merica Mitch, not Moscow Mitch.

[Alister]

Re: Asset stripper

Just for once, party above country.

I think (I hope) you meant that the other way round.

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: You cannot have someone stripping the USA...

There has been abundant evidence to the contrary over the last 3½ years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Asset stripper

Trump an asset stripper?

Dude, he made his money in real estate.

Then he tried to capitalize on branding his name.

You're just jealous because he did it before the Kardashians.

[trindflo]

Re: Asset stripper

Yeah that's right. Asset stripper. The money he appeared to have recently made in real estate is now looking like a lot of promissory notes all about to come due. Sort of like someone who takes out a reverse mortgage. Not exactly genius level real estate.

Care to guess at the next act? All those farmers he's been starving out in the mid-west? Want to bet whether he and his buddies are about to head west to do some more great real estate deals? Some leveraged buyouts all the while never quite getting to black ink?

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't think she would want to draw attention to her miserable failure at HP.

[Peter2]

Or eBay. Of course, buying Skype (and why did she do that given it didn't fit in at all with eBay...?) only lost them a few billion, which is cheap by the standards of what HP ended up losing in the infamous Autonomy acquisition.

[I ain't Spartacus]

To be fair, the Autonomy acquisition was Apotheker's baby. Although she was on the board at the time, I think, and supported the deal.

[jelabarre59]

And with the likes of Meg Whitman supporting Senile Joe and his power-crazed puppetmaster/running mate, yet *another* of a multitude of reasons NOT to vote for Biden/harris.

[Hollerithevo]

Senile? Power-crazed?

Trump and Biden are both old guys, but Biden seems to be able to cycle for miles and Trump has issues with a ramp. Trump goes wandering off with this thoughts and Biden stumbles over words (especially as he has a stammer). Kamala ran for president. God forbid a woman should want power. It's Just Not Natural. And of course a smart woman must be the puppetmaster of the man she's working with.

If you have something that isn't ad hominem insults to say against them, why don't you? I could sling insults at Trump, but I would rather point to his failed promises, corruption, nepotism, and his speedy deepening of the swamp (please not how many lobbyists are now in positions of power).

[Antron Argaiv]

Is she only just now discovering this? The rest of us knew Donald Trump was a poor businessman years ago.

[Doctor Syntax]

"You wouldn't think she would want to draw attention to her miserable failure at HP."

Who says she failed? Everyone else,of course, but in her own mind there'd be no failure at all.

[sanmigueelbeer]

Former HP CEO and Republican Meg Whitman says Donald Trump can't run a business

It takes one to know one, Meg. And you, madam, do not even know how to run a brothel on a hot summer's day in Prague.

(No offense to the Czech.)

[Anonymous Coward]

And you, madam, do not even know how to run a brothel on a hot summer's day in Prague

Yes all we need now is for Dido Harding to chip in to say how badly organised Trump's response to Covid-19 has been and that his cybersecurity is pants...

[Snapper]

>cough<

https://is.gd/ju2L2P

[Doctor Syntax]

I assume the shortened URL (a curse be upon all shortened URLs) was to something like this latest news of Dido Harding's relentless failing upwards https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53813480

[sanmigueelbeer]

https://is.gd/ju2L2P

Quick, hand me a bag. I think I'm about to barf!

[Hollerithevo]

And presumably

No offence to any other woman, because the choice of job that leaps to mind when discussing female business leaders is always madam of a brothel.

[luis river]

Signed: A fanatical follower of Donald Trump's irresponsible and bellicose politics.

[Denarius]

Pot, meet Kettle

says it all

[Pascal Monett]

"three other prominent Republicans who said they will put country before party"

It is a sad state of political landscape when you have to actually count on people who state they will put their country first.

Personally, if you don't put your country first, you have no business being in politics.

[s. pam]

To know failure is to be one....

Whitman is taking the proverbial here given her past, but it is true that Trumplestiltskin couldn't run a piss up in a brewery in a burning bag of dog poo!

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: To know failure is to be one....

in a brewery in a burning bag of dog poo

I know US mainstream beer doesn't have a great reputation, but that comment still puzzles me...

[Potemkine!]

With Gorges Bush Junior we the Rest Of The World^TM tought the US couldn't fall lower. Then the Republicans with the help of Russia succeeded to put Krusty Trump in the White House, the most pitiful,clownish president to date.

GOP will have a hard time next time to find somebody more idiotic, but I trust them to be able to succeed in this harsh mission. With the trumpian crowd living in an alternate reality where there's a worldwide conspiracy of radical leftist paedophiles against their guru, GOP will be able to sell them whoever it wants.

I begin to believe the hypno-toad is real.

[Kane]

"I begin to believe the hypno-to..."

ALL HAIL HYPNOTOAD

[Thomas F Thurlow]

Leo Apotheker was the CEO of HP when the offer to purchase Autonomy Corp was made

From the article:

> It was on Whitman’s watch that the company made one of the worst tech

> acquisitions of all time, buying software maker Autonomy for $11bn. It

> wrote down the value of the purchase by a whopping $8.8bn a year later.

I think that Leo Apotheker, the previous CEO of HP before Meg Whitman, is more to blame for the purchase of Autonomy Corporation PLC than Meg Whitman is. Leo Apotheker was CEO of HP when the offer to purchase Autonomy Corporation PLC was made:

From Wikpedia:

> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Autonomy

> 18 August 2011: Hewlett-Packard announced that it would purchase

> Autonomy for US$42.11 per share. The transaction was

> unanimously approved by the boards of directors of both HP

> and Autonomy and the Autonomy board recommended that

> its shareholders accept the offer.

The takeover may have completed in the first 2 weeks Meg Whitman was CEO of HP, but the offer to purchase Autonomy Corporation PLC was made before Meg Whitman was CEO. Meg Whitman was on the HP board when the offer was made to purchase Autonomy Corporation PLC, but she was not CEO of HP then.

Here are some links that back up what I am saying:

An HP corporation announcement:

https://www8.hp.com/us/en/hp-news/press-release.html?id=1373462

>Press Release: October 03, 2011

>Topics: Financial, Strategic Focus: Software

>Print

>Share

>HP Acquires Control of Autonomy Corporation plc

From Wikpedia:

> wiki2.org/en/Léo_Apotheker

>Léo Apotheker (born September 18, 1953, in Aachen) is a German

>business executive. He served briefly as the chief executive officer

>of Hewlett-Packard from >November 2010 until his firing in September 2011. [1]

From Wikpedia:

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meg_Whitman

>In January 2011, Whitman joined Hewlett-Packard's (HP) board of

>directors.[42] She was named CEO on September 22, 2011.[43]

Thanks,

Tom

[luis river]

Re: Leo Apotheker was the CEO of HP when the offer to purchase Autonomy Corp was made

Today to know, many first consult wikipedia for an opinion. Meg, her main contribution to HP is that she went from being a company without a north to another in which she traces the future path of her recovery.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Leo Apotheker was the CEO of HP when the offer to purchase Autonomy Corp was made

Since Meg was on the board and the vote for acquisition was unanimous, she was ok with spending the money regardless of when she took over as CEO. If she thought it smelled, she had two chances to go thumbs down.

[HurdImpropriety]

Carly is full of it

Guess which single former CEO forwarded the offshoring of American Hi-tech jobs more than ANYONE else? That's right Carly Fiorina. She also made a huge business model training other companies on how to offshore. Then Carly gets up at the Republican debate and has the GAUL to say "We need to keep more jobs in America!"

Really Fiorina, give it up. You always were a Democrat.

[HurdImpropriety]

It has taken a worldwide pandemic, millions out of work, and millions on unemployment to bring the economy down to the level that was the height of the Obama era.

[luis river]

Meg "great value"

Meg whitman is one of those people I would have liked to have met personally, with overwhelming personality but her is an open person who likes to hear other people's opinions, if Biden is smart he will know how to bring her to the White House government team.

[ToddRundgrensUtopia]

Re: Meg "great value"

She listens to Kenny Rodgers FFS and wait for it................ believes in all of the lyrics........nutter

[ToddRundgrensUtopia]

It was on Whitman’s watch that the company made one of the worst tech acquisitions of all time, buying software maker Autonomy for $11bn.

No it wasn't it was under Apotheker. Shite journalism

[spunkypete]

Headline: Bland, overpaid non-entity of dubious talent and solid track-record of failure supports the democrat candidate. Quelle surprise.

People are gonna be really, really cross - more so than last time - when Trump wins by a *landslide*. Expect wailing and gnashing of teeth, blaming of Russians, corruption, election-fixing, illuminati and Scientologists.Etc. Etc. Etc.

Don't expect the Democrat party to take a long hard look at its own failings as an equally economically illiterate, corrupt and venal bunch of nest-featherers with no idea how to actually govern a country. With bonus points for enthusiastically supporting whatever woke nonsense du jour might bribe the more sanctimonious edges of the electorate. Heavens, no.

The lefty tears will be delightfully salty.

[Man inna barrel]

Sounds a lot like the UK right now

We end up with a latin-quoting toff comedian as prime minister, with an incompetent cabinet of ministers, partly because the opposition under Jeremy Corbyn was ineffectual and unelectable. Maybe things will change with the new Labour leader, Keir Starmer. His sensible legalistic approach is a bit boring, but a breath of fresh air as far as I am concerned. A bit late to get into government though.

I do not really know much about Joe Biden, but I get the impression he represents the sensible end of Democrat politics, rather than being a sanctimonious lefty. The question is: do voters in the USA vote for good sense and honour? The evidence is to the contrary, otherwise someone like Donald Trump never have been considered as a president, let alone winning.

I should say that an uninformed electorate easily swayed by empty slogans is a long standing problem in democracy. It is not that people are stupid, but rather that they are often unsophisticated in politics, and they are up against a political machine that is very skilled and sophisticated.