SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A full-page ad in the Sunday editions of the Washington Post and The New York Times urged Tesla CEO Elon Musk to "dump Trump."
The ads were paid for by a startup investor named Doug Derwin. The longtime Silicon Valley resident told CNNMoney he shelled out $400,000 to run ads in the Times and the Post, as well as the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News.
It's the latest step in Derwin's $1 million bid to convince Musk he's failing environmentalists. He calls it "Elon Dump Trump."
Derwin said he didn't want to launch the campaign at first. Back in January, he was eagerly awaiting the arrival of his Tesla (TSLA) Model S electric car.
But as his Tesla was about to be delivered, Derwin said he caught wind of Uber CEO Travis Kalanick's decision to walk away from Trump's business advisory council, which Kalanick served on with Musk. Kalanick had previously defended his working relationship with President Trump, but public pressure mounted in the wake of the president's immigration order.
That's a lot of money allocated to deprive Trump of ostensibly good advice.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:21AM (2 children)
It might be argued that he didn't win the popular vote. But, he did win the electoral college vote - that old "representative" part of "representative democracy". Both parties have been happy enough with the process by which presidents are elected, for a long long time. Both parties have had their candidates elected since they became parties, using the same process. When your party wins, you're happy with the process. When your party loses, then the process is broken? Come on, man. Trump is as legitimate as any other president you can point out.
Bush beating Gore at the Supreme Court is the only instance in which the same process was possibly undermined. I didn't much like that election. But, point your fingers at Florida, and that stupid assed "hanging chad" thing. If their voting process hadn't been screwed up, maybe the decision wouldn't have gone to the Supremes. Maybe Gore would have won. And, maybe not. And, maybe Gore would have been a worse president than Bush was.
Most thinking people know damned well that Clinton would have been a worse president than - just about anybody.
(Score: 2) by julian on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:22AM (1 child)
If you voted for Trump, apologize, promise never to vote for a charlatan game show host again, admit Clinton was the better choice, and this convo can continue. Otherwise I'm not interested in someone disconnected from reality and decent morality.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:11PM
I posted here, on election day. I voted for Johnson, and, as near to a straight party ticket for Libertarians as it has ever been possible to do.
Clinton MIGHT have been a better choice than someone like Ayatollah Khoumeini. Or, maybe better than Kruschev. Maybe better than that Baby Doc asshole who made headlines for child soldiers a couple years back. WTF did Hillary have to offer? She offered you money for your vote? Oh - silly me. Hillary rakes money in by the billions, but she never gives any of it away, unless to family. Don't even tell me about her "charitable works". The people who needed that "charity" money never saw a dime of it - it was all handed over to her family members, to dispose of as they saw fit.
I don't know though - for certain definitions of "better", maybe Hillary really is better than those people I named.
Charlatans? Find me a politician who is certifiably not a charlatan, and I'll consider voting for him.