USV Endorses Hillary Clinton For President

From the USV blog this morning:

Hillary Clinton for President

This is the fourth presidential election during the existence of Union Square Ventures and the first one in which we as a firm feel compelled to endorse a candidate: Hillary Clinton.

As investors in technology companies, we believe that technology and innovation create broad opportunity and improve lives. But we also know that, to date, the benefits of technology and globalization have not been evenly distributed. People with access to education and capital have prospered while many others have seen good jobs lost to automation or offshoring. We understand why people whose lives have been upended are frustrated by politicians who squabble for partisan advantage instead of developing consensus solutions. We are not surprised that many feel the urge to reboot the whole system.

We agree that more of the same is not the answer. In the next few years, we need to make the necessary smart policy adjustments to ensure that the benefits of technology and innovation are shared by society as a whole.

Shutting out the world is not an option. We don’t think it’s desirable, or even possible, to return to an earlier era when America was less diverse, or the economy was less global. There is no wall big enough to protect us from a changing climate or the unintended consequences of new technologies like artificial intelligence or DNA manipulation. Now, more than ever, we must work together. We cannot unilaterally set the rules for the other seven billion people on the planet. The only way forward is through an open, respectful, and rational dialogue grounded in science.

Of the two major party candidates, we believe that only Hillary Clinton has the temperament and experience to lead us at home and represent us abroad.

We hope that everyone, no matter how frustrated with our current politics, will get out and vote. We applaud the movement to give employees extra time off on election day. If you’re not registered and don’t see the point, we hope you will reconsider and register here orhere.  This is an important election and we need to make a choice among the two leading candidates — we believe that a protest vote is a wasted vote — and for us the clear choice is Hillary Clinton.


Comments (Archived):

  1. Anne Libby

    Thumbs up.

  2. Martin otyeka


  3. aminTorres

    Was it hard/easy for the team to all agree to be public about this? Curious.

  4. kidmercury

    i’m amazed by the opening sentence:This is the fourth presidential election during the existence of Union Square Ventures and the first one in which we as a firm feel compelled to endorse a candidate: Hillary Clinton. of all the elections, this one is the one that feels compelled?anyway, the whole neocon establishment is lining up for hillary. too bad USV views a neocon candidate as the only no brainer over the past 16 years.

    1. aminTorres

      / of all the elections, this one is the one that feels compelled?I don’t think that was the point.

  5. andyswan

    Avoiding being “droned” is always a good move!

    1. Jordan Thaeler

      Too bad Karl Marx wasn’t running this election cycle…

      1. JLM

        .Didn’t he get trick fucked in the Dem primary?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

        1. Jordan Thaeler

          Sadly, yes. Oh well. We might still pray for a last-minute Castro-Chavez ticket with an Obama blessing. That’s the Holy Trinity… or so I’m told.

  6. jason wright

    the atomic unit of a democracy is the individual.Which one will she invade first?

  7. Joe Lazarus

    The Cyber is with her.

  8. andyswan

    “But we also know that, to date, the benefits of technology and globalization have not been evenly distributed.”Why should they be?In any case, I’m happy to provide a routing number if you have any “excess benefits” you’re looking to offload.

    1. pointsnfigures

      There is a way to evenly distribute everything. However, it comes at the price of being at the tip of a spear.

    2. CJ

      You should probably address that at China and the other current or formerly emerging markets. They’ve benefited from technology and globalization to a level that far exceeds our own benefit. I’d argue that the US would be in a much better state economically comparatively had globalization not occurred.

    3. Matt Zagaja

      America wins because we have the best and brightest people in the world, and the best and brightest people want to be here. Genius can be found across the country and it takes resources to nurture genius into the next Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg. Simply put we’re the casino and we have the option to tip the odds in our favor. Why rely on dumb luck to win at business when we can use smart luck?

      1. LE

        Elon is going batshit though. [1] And Zuckerberg basically has been taking advertising dollars that would have been spent elsewhere. Not that there aren’t spinoff benefits. But when you boil it down it’s not at the top of any list of big world problems that people were talking about prior to when FB was founded as a way for Mark to get a date.What I want to know is when someone with a brain will figure out a way to help people in poor neighborhoods with no opportunity. Where is the Mars shot for that one? Not sexy enough. I guess not shiny enough.[1] Mars colonies:

        1. Cam MacRae

          “The best and brightest” is a term that should never be used without irony or a love of romantic poetry. You can choose which applies to Musk and Zuck.

          1. JLM

            .Many of the biggest challenges in the world are made right by guys who get up early, stay late, and eat their lunches from lunch boxes.Those are the people who voted in 2014 and handed the control of the Congress to the Republicans, who promptly squandered it.They are still out there. They are still angry. They will be voting in November.The best and the brightest — the kids with mousse in their hair and Ivy League MBAs — brought us derivatives. That worked out well, eh?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          2. Cam MacRae

            Right. The best and the brightest ironically describes the Kennedy whizz kids. Not really the kind of folks Matt meant (I hope).It’s an expression that bugs the shit out of me to an extent matched only by “meritocracy”, which is itself a satire.

        2. sigmaalgebra

          > What I want to know is whenNow. Clearly enough, that is what Trump has in mind for the poor areas. E.g., he plans to get Flint making cars again. The UAW may not be totally thrilled about some of just how he does it.

    4. Quantella Owens

      The best answer I have is that it serves your self-interest. If the working poor have access to what I will call “useful” tech-which I have dedicated the last two decades of my life to building-they should theoretically be less of a-social net-burden on you, cast less envious glances your way and hopefully not see you as lunch-and I mean that in the literal sense. The Have Nots are angry and rightly or wrongly they blame you-The Haves-the next downturn will be ugly and I personally would doubt for my safety if I were one of you. I would already be leaving…Trump has set a dangerous precedent in motion and Clinton has as well by being so publicly decisive. I don’t think that everyone should be rewarded the same, but I do think that right now, so soon after the GFC and millions have lost homes etc. that it is a bad time to pretend that this enormous inequality gap is a good thing. People who have use are being tossed aside in the Valley and elsewhere because of ageism, racism etc and being told that they are worthless. Everybody works more than they do anything else and to take someone’s work away or deny them the ability to contribute seems a terrible shame and a waste.

      1. andyswan

        Refreshing to see the violent underpinnings of leftist philosophy just laid out there like this. And people wonder why I “need” a gun

        1. Quantella Owens

          I am not a “leftist” I am a Randian-although I suppose that might make it worse for some. I am simply trying to point out that people are angry, the pot definitely does NOT need anymore stirring and that the masses blame those they see as above them for the mess-rightly or wrongly. A waitress-American-was denied a tip at her restaurant because the couple decided she was illegal just based on the fact that she is latina. I can’t post a link to the story because I am a hopeless technot, but it is everywhere on Google and FB. Her GF, an attorney married to a Hondurian woman, went to her job looking for the idiots and caused an almighty ruckus. But the point is that they were wrong, racist and unrepentant. I used a non-black example on purpose. And yes, you do need a gun, but have you ever read “A Tale of Two Cities?”

        2. Salt Shaker

          Your home state, Kentucky, historically is one the most dependent states on federal aid as a % of gross revenue (usually Top 10). “Big gov’t” is working for you to a greater extent than you acknowledge (or perhaps even realize). I bet if more of that burden shifted from the fed to state level and to your taxes you’d be considerably less critical.

          1. andyswan

            That argument does nothing for me. All it does is point out which states host our military bases. But yes, I’m perfectly supportive of moving all spending and taxation as local as possible and giving people the right to choose their Marxism level via mobility_____________________________

          2. Salt Shaker

            Not really, at 19% KY has the 5th highest poverty rate among the 50 states thereby requiring significant fed aid (national avg. 3.8%). Yes, military bases are a big factor, but not a complete picture.

          3. JLM

            .Much of what is described as Federal aid is, actually, the cost of military facilities.Fort Knox, Fort Campbell, Blue Grass Army Depot are three of the largest such facilities in the country.Knox is more than 150 square miles and has the Nation’s bullion reserve.Fort Campbell is home to the 101st Abn Div, part of America’s first strike capability. I’ve sat on that ice cold runway a few mornings.Blue Grass is the home of Chemical Warfare and Weapons as well as where much of the Army’s ammunition is stored. It is spread out for obvious reasons.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          4. Salt Shaker

            Roughly 30 states have more military bases than KY, size notwithstanding. Not suggesting military spending isn’t an issue but w/ a 19% poverty rate KY on a per capita basis is pretty reliant on fed aid.

      2. sigmaalgebra

        It’s sad but true, history shows clearly that a even a horrible government holding power can have enough troops, police, and thugs to beat down even a huge fraction of the population ready to string up and otherwise kill off the power elite in the existing power structure.Really, successful violent revolutions are from just “kicking in the rotten door”. If the government is bad enough in enough respects, then the door will become rotten and vulnerable to being kicked in.E.g., the French Revolution? No, not caused by the exploitation of the poor by the power elite saying “Let them eat cake”. Instead caused by three years of crop failures in a row from the Little Ice Age. The people on the barricades were dying of starvation so had little to lose on the barricades.In a country like the US, by a wide margin, the easiest revolution is not in the streets with sticks, clubs, knives, bombs, and guns but at the ballot box. Or, to borrow from another part of history, violent resistance in the US will only “Awaken a sleeping tiger and fill him with a terrible resolve.”.

  9. William Mougayar

    Let’s hope the voter turnout is high this time around, and far exceeds the last one which stood at about 57%.

    1. gkamstra

      Wholeheartedly agree. We have candidates who disagree on things as fundamental as US support for nuclear non-proliferation. It would be a real shame if a choice this large was made (either way) without setting modern records for voter turnout.

    2. LE

      The only reason that Trump is even in the running is because of all of the people who are coming out to vote as a result of Trump (or stopping him).As such it pays for the democrats to carefully continue a narrative that the race is close so that people who would vote for Hillary actually show up.

    3. pwrserge

      I’d bet money on it. Middle America is PISSED. Trump is going to either steamroller Hitlary or his “defeat” will kick off a civil war. There are millions of armed people in this country who are done with the tyranny of the Demokkkratic party.

  10. pointsnfigures

    No Surprise. Has USV ever endorsed a candidate that wasn’t Democratic when it came to the Presidency? Does USV have a partner that consistently contributes and advocates for Republicans with the same level of veracity that other USV partners do for Democrats?I don’t think a vote for Gary Johnson/Jill Stein is a wasted vote. Especially if you are in a state where the outcome is all but guaranteed. Reasonable people can disagree about that.

    1. James Burns

      I agree. A third party vote is not a wasted vote. If this mindset persists then we will never have an independent/third party candidate and will continue with a corrupt and broken two party system.

      1. Vivek Kumar

        a protest votes gets reduced to – “Whatever everybody else decides is OK with me.” quoting from the link – a protest vote is a wasted vote :It’s easy to argue that our system shouldn’t work like that. It’s impossible to argue it doesn’t work like that.People who believe in protest votes do so because they confuse sending a message with receiving one. You can send any message you like: “I think Jill Stein should be President” or “I think David Duke should be President” or “I think Park Eunsol should be President.”Throwing away your vote on a message no one will hear, and which will change no outcome, is sometimes presented as ‘voting your conscience’, but that’s got it exactly backwards; your conscience is what keeps you from doing things that feel good to you but hurt other people. Citizens who vote for third-party candidates, write-in candidates, or nobody aren’t voting their conscience, they are voting their ego, unable to accept that a system they find personally disheartening actually applies to them.But it doesn’t matter what message you think you are sending, because no one will receive it.

        1. Jess Bachman

          – said no revolutionary ever

          1. Donna Brewington White

            Good point.

          2. Kirsten Lambertsen

            If any of us were revolutionaries, we’d be out on the streets, not contemplating ‘protest votes’ from in front of our morning lattes.

          3. ShanaC

            Far too true

          4. Donna Brewington White

            You are on a roll, sister.

          5. Jess Bachman

            I suppose you want me to take off my Che t-shirt too. Well I will tell you this Kirsten Labertsen, I won’t do it. No way.

          6. Kirsten Lambertsen

            LOL. I would NEVER as a person to remove their Che ANYTHING. Vive La Revolution!

        2. Pointsandfigures

          I cannot in good conscious vote for someone like Hillary Clinton. If a normal person had done what she did they would be in jail. I realize that few in the community of startups will agree because most toe the Democratic Party line. Besides imprisoning someone with no proof and the email issue she used her office as a personal piggy bank. Given a choice between that and Trump a vote for Johnson is not a waste

          1. Jess Bachman

            I’m pretty sure anyone roam the halls of power at that level has an unreported rapsheet longer than most street gangs. It’s practically a requirement.

          2. Hu Man

            Not Bernie!

          3. LE

            The expression that applies here is “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” though.It’s a basic choice to me of lesser of two evils.

          4. sigmaalgebra

            For Hillary’s serious crimes, we are awash in rock solid evidence.E.g., FBI Directory Comey said that Hillary’s handling of classified information was “extremely careless” and that is a case of “gross negligence” which is the sufficient condition for violation of section (f) of the US Espionage Act.The UBS and Ericsson deals were bribery, and Mayor Giuliani has stated that for the UBS deal he would love to prosecute Bill and Hillary for bribery or under RICO.But, a decision to prosecute is up to the DoJ Attorney General (AG) who serves at the pleasure of the President who does not want such a prosecution.

          5. neonnautilus

            Then why didn’t someone – anyonei prosecute them? You reveal your bias by admitting that you listen to anything giuliani says after his wild-eyed rantings in support of trump.

          6. David Mowers


          7. sigmaalgebra

            For your question> Then why didn’t someone – anyonei prosecute them?just read what I wrote:> But, a decision to prosecute is up to the DoJ Attorney General (AG) who serves at the pleasure of the President who does not want such a prosecution.It is for just such cases that we can have a special prosecutor, e.g., as we had for Bill Clinton.And IIRC Trump has said that if he wins he will or might ask for a special prosecutor.More generally, if Hillary wins, she could be subject to such prosecution or impeachment by Congress. That is, as I read the Constitution, impeachment can be for things done before taking office.Section (f) of the US Espionage Act is super heavy duty serious stuff, and there it appears that Hillary’s violations are massive.Just why FBI Director Comey didn’t recommend prosecution under section (f) is another issue, but, again, the decision to prosecute really is not his.But, yes, the US Attorney General stated that she would follow Comey’s recommendation. So, so far, no prosecution.In this way, and in more in the case, Comey shot the reputation of the FBI in the gut. Just why is another question. But I doubt that it is illegal in any way for him just to state that in his opinion there should be no prosecution; likely he can form his opinion for any reason or no reason. One excuse was that Hillary showed no intent; of course, section (f) says nothing about intent. Another excuse was that there had been no similar prosecutions or convictions or some such under section (f) suggesting that somehow in practice section (f) no longer means what it says.Obama? Supposedly if there were a case, he would be called as a witness and would have to answer questions under oath. Maybe he would prefer to play golf that day instead.Hillary, Comey, and the Attorney General go way back together.Likely Comey won’t leave soon: IIRC, the Director of the FBI is appointed for a term of 10 years.IMHO, in 2017 there will be some shocking tell-all books published about the Obama Administration, likely with a lot on Hillary, section (f), the UBS case, the Ericsson case, the uranium case, etc.IMHO, if Trump wins, a lot of brooms will sweep out a lot of dirt from the halls of DC.It may be that several well known people now in DC will face really big legal problems if Trump wins but not if Hillary wins.IIRC, I’ve mentioned that likely the more serious security issue in Hillary’s e-mail is not her e-mail server but her e-mail client, that is, the end-user client device she used to access her e-mail. IIRC, she mostly used just a wireless Blackberry that did not encrypt it’s wireless signals. And often she used such a Blackberry in the open to the whole world on a balcony of the State Department building. So, …, it would appear that any well funded hacker could have wireless equipment similar to what the wireless networks have and use and, thus, receive all of Hillary’s Blackberry data traffic. Then that traffic should have the domain name of her server, her login in name on the e-mail software (maybe Microsoft Exchange), and her login password. Then, with these three items of data, the hacker could from anywhere in the Internet login to Hillary’s e-mail server essentially as Hillary and download all of her e-mail traffic stored there.I don’t know how easy it is to hack a Windows Server running Exchange, but my guess would be that it is easier to hack the unencrypted wireless signals from a Blackberry.From all of that, I have to believe that if the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans, US NSA, …, really cared about getting Hillary’s e-mail, then they got it all.

          8. Donna Brewington White

            That’s the thing, Jeff. I don’t hear any of these principled people that I respect so much acknowledging that they are supporting what they consider to be the lesser of two evils. Or, is voting based on “temperament” a euphemism for this?

          9. pointsnfigures

            I know Republicans that are taking principled stands against Trump. I know of zero Democrats taking principled stands against Hillary Clinton.

          10. sigmaalgebra

            By principled you mean something like “true fiscal conservatives”?I don’t trust that conservative stuff — I don’t think it works very well and have to suspect that there’s more to doing well steering the economy than conservative principles.E.g., look at Trump’s plans for taxes and the economy: He wants to put people back to work, run a surplus, pay off the national debt, not cut entitlements, spend more on the military and infrastructure, and do this with some big time tax cuts.So, under true conservative principles, the tax cuts promise higher deficits?But in Trump’s……he argues essentially that lower taxes and fewer unneeded regulations and enforcing our trade agreements will cause more private sector spending, put people back to work, and increase tax revenue enough to make “the math work”.Well, apparently that is basically what Walter Heller and Reagan did.

          11. sigmaalgebra

            Donna, “Always look for the hidden agenda”. Also, “Follow the money.” So, tough for me to believe that temperament is the real issue!

          12. Donna Brewington White

            Ah, Siggy. Would you have me become a skeptic?

          13. sigmaalgebra

            I’m sure you are a skilled skeptic and, e.g., not gullible.My approach to not gullible was to stay with math and physics where I could be sure the material was correct. When physics got too sloppy with the math, I concentrated just on the math.Since then I’ve learned more and tried to branch out to more than just math, but I’m still not skeptical enough!

          14. ShanaC

            Pretty much

          15. creative group

            Donna Brewington White:forget Temperament. How about some good old common sense and intelligence coming out of one’s mouth. Just simple

          16. creative group

            Pointsandfigures:(Why is your P capitalized now? Are you a clone?)”Besides imprisoning someone with no proof”Is exactly why Progressives view the Rightwing push on that topic a witch-hunt that has run out of steam. Attempting to link a person for twenty plus years and not coming up with one factual conclusion verse conspiracy theory talking points are for the illiterate.We without a doubt have a multitude of reservations regarding HRC policy views. (Not Ult-Right Wing National Enquirer talking points)POLICY DIFFERENCES!There is no way Trump is even an option based upon his own statements in actual videos and rally’s. (Not Progressive talking points)If a person had policy differences similar to Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill then that is a difference from character assassination and Ult-Right Wing conspiracy theories. The worthless attack regarding Benghazi is at the do nothing obstructionist Republican party that didn’t authorize funding. (Facts: http://www.huffingtonpost.c…#UnequivocallyUnapologeticallyIndependent

          17. steven spencer

            As someone with a law degree i think i have an above average grasp of her use of private email and would have been shocked if there was some sort of indictment. Comey is a career law enforcement official and a conservative. the idea that he had some sort of bias towards not recommending a prosecution if a crime had been committed strikes me as very wrong. Her two predecessors used private emails during their terms as well. There are many reasons to not vote for HRC but she didn’t get away with a crime by using private email while at State.two articles:

          18. pointsnfigures

            My friends that are practicing attorneys in Chicago say she should be in jail. Guess that’s why there are judges and juries.

        3. James Burns

          The article you referenced is short sighted, only thinking of this as a vote for the next 4 years. Every vote does send a message and eventually the message sent by non-status quo votes will be amplified enough to produce the positive change that is needed in the election process.

        4. Donna Brewington White

          Not sure I fully agree (or disagree) but you make a very interesting argument, raising some compelling concepts I have not heard applied to this issue: “confusing sending a message with receiving one” (common communication error) … “throwing away your vote on a message no one will hear” … “voting your ego rather than voting your conscience” … “unable to accept that a system they find personally disheartening actually applies to them.”Some thoughts… (1) Ego as “sense of identity” is not necessarily a bad thing. (2) You are suggesting that we accept a certain defeatism. (3) You are asking a lot of an individual voter in terms of corporate responsibility — so does our one vote matter or doesn’t it?It’s a larger question of values …and the perceived value of a single vote. Is the voting booth a door you enter alone?Thanks for the challenging thoughts.

        5. sigmaalgebra

          A protest vote still gets counted and reported and, thus, is heard.

          1. Vivek Kumar

            Heard by whom and towards what end ?

          2. sigmaalgebra

            Heard by everyone who just looks at the number of votes each candidate got.E.g., a lot of protest votes for Bernie would tell the Democrats that (A) there are votes to be had from the far left, (B) they don’t like Hillary, (C) they were casting a vote for someone they knew wouldn’t win, that is a protest vote, and (D) in future elections the Democrats could get those votes if they ran a good candidate instead of someone like Hillary, nasty, lying, crooked, national security disaster, contemptuous, no judgment, no character, no temperament, for sale, total do nothing for the country, bought and paid for by people, companies, and governments with lots of money, totally incompetent at anything at all real, etc.

        6. Kirsten Lambertsen

          Yeah, while the arguments there are good, I learned about this during the 2000 election. I wanted to vote for the 3rd party Pres candidate. It was believed that candidate would pull more votes from the Democratic candidate than from the Republican. I didn’t care. I wanted to send a message to the Dems, whom I thought were moving too far right.Then I saw the congressman from a low income underserved Los Angeles neighborhood, *begging* people not to cast a “protest vote.” He said (I’m paraphrasing), “I get it. We need more than two parties. But the presidential election isn’t the place or way to do that. I’m begging you. My district WON’T SURVIVE four years of George W Bush.”And it dawned on me that I wouldn’t be the one paying the price for my ‘protest vote.’ It would be people who didn’t enjoy my white privilege.The time to get a third party started is between elections. In fact, it’s lazy to expect your ‘protest’ vote to do that job for you.

      2. sigmaalgebra

        Third party candidate Perot is why we got the Clinton Crime Family.

        1. pointsnfigures

          This is true. Republicans were upset with “Read my lips”. The Bush family have never been true fiscal conservatives. Jeb never had a chance, but never saw it coming.

      3. Scott Avid

        Gary Johnson is a pothead and he’s shilling for the Democrats. Other than the fact that his criminal record isn’t as extensive as Clinton’s, his policies are identical to the Democrats. Hardly a “third party”.

      4. Scott Avid

        Trump **is** the third party.Trump is not a Republican, he’s a disillusioned Democrat who staged a highly successful hostile takeover of the Republican party. This is why so many Republicans are fleeing from him and are voting for the “other” One-Party candidate, Hillary.Trump is not an elephant, and he’s not a donkey. Trump is Pepe the frog. Trump **is** the third party. #PraiseKek

    2. Matthew Perle

      He just said they’ve never endorsed another presidential candidate. And it’s a weird thing to always expect equal advocacy on behalf of both parties (let alone from a VC firm) when the parties don’t always deserve equal advocacy. Sometimes candidates are just bad.

    3. DJL

      The cynic is me says that a VC firm endorses a candidate for some reason. HRC and the democrats are in bed with big finance and big tech in a BIG way. It shows how scared they all are that Trump might actually WIN. Besides, VCs already have their millions. They don’t need jobs or affordable healthcare. Who cares about the majority of middle Americans struggling paycheck to paycheck?

      1. Anthony

        You should be cynical.VCs want high income taxes because they put pressure on privately owned businesses to turn to them for financing. If taxes were lower fewer businesses would need VC.Additionally, VC’s don’t pay the taxes that they disingenuously encourage HRC and the Democratic party to raise. They primarily pay capital gains taxes on their investments.The entire premise of the VC movement is to run losses, chase valuation and aggressively avoid income taxes while only paying incredibly low capital gains taxes.It’s disgusting or as Clinton would say “deplorable.”

        1. LE

          Capital gains taxes will go up most likely. [1]Actually I am wrong in part let me correct this.…[1] For investments held less than six years.

          1. Anthony

            Okay so there is a penalty for dumping an investment early but if you hold it longer you still only pay 20%. If I was a VC or startup founder I’d love that rule.It pushes out competition from smaller investors that can’t tie their money up for 6 years as easily and creates a safer environment for founders.

          2. JLM

            .You may be missing the 3.8% Obamacare tax, Anthony.Total cap gains taxes are 23.8% having started at 15% when Obama came into office.The taxation of capital gains has a huge impact on job creation. As we can all see.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          3. LE

            Exactly. Not to mention add to that state capital gains tax.

          4. JLM

            .The taxation of capital — after tax dollars — is obscene and illogical.It is one of the fundamental reasons why job creation is anemic.Who creates jobs in the US?Guys sleeping under bridges or millionaires/billionaires?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          5. LE

            The lack of understanding of business, taxes, and entrepreneurial motivation by journalists and tv talking heads is world class.And the masturbation over the loss is scary. It’s as if someone were to talk about an athlete’s early days where they lost the game (big time) and didn’t acknowledge the comeback in later years and where they stand now as an actual achievement.

          6. JLM

            .I love the MSM saying, “He can write off his taxes for the next 18 years.”NOL carryBACKS are for 2 years and NOL carryFORWARDS are for 20 years.You can only deduct the amount of income generated in any year. The NYT, HRC/WJC, DJT all use them because they are…..wait on it…..the freakin’ tax law.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          7. LE

            Trump successfully was able to employ the basic saw which said the following:”If you owe the bank $10,000 and can’t pay you have a problem. If you owe the bank $10,000,000 and can’t pay the bank has a problem”.I wonder to what extent some of those carryforwards were able to end up benefiting people that he did deals with as well. Seems to me (I made this comment the other day) that he could have walked away with a great deal of money potentially by selling off his rights to another business entity for the loss assuming the right structure.My guess is that if he loses the race the rights to the actual story that went behind this event would be worth millions to the right media outlet. It would be bigger than OJ’s “how I would do it if I had done it”. (I am actually serious here..)One other thing. Entirely possible that he also filed another return not showing as large of a loss later on.

          8. JLM

            .You can’t sell or otherwise transfer personal NOL carryFORWARDS but what you can do is to merge like kind corporate entities and co-mingle the losses with offsetting gains.An individual cannot do this but a corporation can.It is a ticklish bit of business but it can be made to work easily. It has to be “like kind” and it has to match the applicable years.It is a sweet business when you have paid real taxes in the last two years and can use a NOL carryBACK provision. It is an immediate benefit and it can, sometimes, pay for the acquisition.It has to be a stock acquisition or a real merger.Under GAAP accounting, you will eventually have to prepare a “burn off” schedule and value the asset value of future write offs (use of the NOL carryFORWARD), if you are profitable. It is an asset with real value.This is weed level GAAP acc’t stuff that I’ve been involved with but you have to make sure you’re current on this stuff and always get an opinion.This is something that I have seen venture funded failed companies try to sort through. The IRS may contest something when it is not a “going concern” or if the company has been dead for a while.It is complicated but it is also easy.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          9. LE

            Yes. Idea is prior to having it end up on his personal return he would have structured things a bit differently to be able to do something such as what I suggested.What I want to know is when they will bring back income averaging.

          10. JLM

            .One thing you can count on is he has the best advice possible.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          11. sigmaalgebra

            Old story: Never borrow a little bit of money. If borrow a little and can’t pay it back. then have someone really angry with you. If borrow a lot and can’t pay it back, then have someone who wants to help you. Learned this first from the founder of FedEx.

          12. LE

            God it just gets me so angry. Philadelphia Inquirer (which has been in red ink for years and filed for bankruptcy like many newspapers) calling it a tax dodge. I guess changing business climate doesn’t matter if you are in the business of news, only in other businesses. I hate this.

          13. sigmaalgebra

            The truth? Newspapers are not interested in the truth. For them, the truth is too boring.Newspaper publishers want revenue from ads from eyeballs, and the worker bees want excitement, scoops.So, the technique of the content is to grab people by the heart, the gut, and below the belt, always below the shoulders, never between the ears. They want blood, sex, scandal, disasters, and, right, celebrities to identify with. For such content, they will distort, make up stuff, insinuate, etc.They like stories and there borrow from what the ancient Greeks learned about how to get and hold an audience — use the techniques we now call formula fiction. So, have a good guy, a white hat, introduced at first. The audience identifies with the white hat, cares about what happens. Then along comes the black hat the enemy of the white hat. Next there is a big battle. After a big struggle with lots of cliff hangers, determination, struggle, risk, the white hat wins and gets the girl.Heck R. Strauss wrote a tone poem Ein Heldenleben as at…There is a nice solo violin part — that’s the girl.So, newsie story telling is so darned simple that can get the content across with music with no words at all.But, but, but, but, but, standards, what about standards you ask? Right, common high school term paper writing standards with quotes with full context from primary sources in trusted references. Right: According to these standards, the newsies get grades of D to F-.This stuff goes way back; e.g., once on TV I saw the total contempt for anything in a newspaper in an Andy Hardy movie in the 1930s. Of course, Citizen Kane made clear the junk of newspapers.Right, occasionally some newspaper does get out some dirt on government.But, right, newspaper can be rented. E.g., bad content about big advertisers is considered, say, bad form.Newspapers, understanding that they have no credibility, have a trick: Borrow from classic propaganda — now matter how crazy, if enough people repeat it often enough, lots of people will believe it. So, newspapers gang up and pile on, that is, on some total nonsense, crazy content, all rush to put out basically the same content, that is, propaganda.Again, always look for the hidden agenda and follow the money.But, rarely should any citizen actually believe anything in a newspaper or the news.So, don’t read the junk.Right, then what? Sure, the newsie business is ripe for revolution via the Internet.

          14. Salt Shaker

            And you know there’s a “comeback” story how, LE? Who’s to say he didn’t suffer similar losses in subsequent years, or even in 2015? Come on, you treat a $900M+ loss as if it’s a rounding error. It’s unprecedented, which isn’t a prob except the guy positions himself as a biz savant. I’m sure his initial intent and investment thesis was to make money, not backdoor a loss. His tax guy had to write in the numbers by hand cause the software he was using didn’t allow for such a large number. Saying most of the voting public doesn’t understand tax law was an opportunity, now it’s only a lame excuse.The bigger issue for me in all this is Trump felt a need to hide his legal “brilliance” from the voting public. If he wasn’t doing anything illegal what’s to hide? His lack of transparency has only lead to a perception of impropriety, which is worse than if he had released the return on his own accord and demonstrated how flawed the system really is.Ironically, all candidates vetted to be Trump’s running mate had to submit their tax returns to a nominating committee. I hope Pence had the balls to ask and receive the same in return.

          15. JLM

            .It was a strategic error not to put out whatever he could in Oct 2015. This will cost him.Having said that, the numbers are not really very big when one considers it was 21 years ago. He only had 20 years to carry NOLs forward and 2 years to carry the same NOLs backward.Both of those time periods have expired. It would be difficult not to believe that is what is taking the time of the IRS to finish an audit.IRS audits take a long, long time.Again, bad move on DJT’s part not to get the poison out in 2015.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          16. Salt Shaker

            The IRS isn’t done w/ Mr. Trump. If he loses (or maybe even if he doesn’t), you watch. I think the IRS has a 3-year statute of limitations on look backs. Not sure how a long-term NOL would factor into the equation, though. Somehow there’s a perception this is all wrong, even if it isn’t. The IRS looks foolish, even if it’s innocent.

          17. LE

            He will run roughshod over them. It’s a game to him. He enjoys it. He is good at it as well. He will run them ragged in the end.This reminds me of some battles that I fight that my wife (who won’t even complain about the bad meal at a restaurant) would need meds doing the same. Even though she can run a code at the hospital which I couldn’t do. It’s a game to some people. Not work and actually fun. Trump nuttiness and good lawyers total edge over the government, assume no crime has been committed and things aren’t super clear cut.God knows when I was 27 or so I got a government bureaucrat (US Dept of Labor) to cut a fine in 1/2 and then after he agreed said “and I need 7 years to pay it out” and he said “sure no problem”. Without a lawyer. Just wore him down. Same as I had done before and have done since. Just put in the effort and stick to it. [1]Trump was trained by Roy Cohn.[1] Not saying you can defy gravity but most people don’t even attempt to give it a shot.

          18. JLM

            .The IRS are plodders when it comes to doing their work. They also get last pick on talent. Some kid with a law degree and 2 years experience is no match for Cousin Mortie.The Tax Court is pretty well regarded and many a taxpayer agrees to fight it out in the Tax Court where the IRS, theoretically, has to prove their case.Most of what consumes time is proving up every single number.When years are linked, any suggestion of statutes of limitations go out the window.In general, the IRS has 3 years to make an assessment of taxes. Many times their assessment is LESS than what an honest taxpayer would be willing to pay. Many a tax pro will say, “Let them take the first bite of the apple. We may get lucky.”If there is a “substantial” discrepancy (25%, i think but don’t hold me to that), then the IRS has 6 years.There is no limitation when there is fraud or a missing return.The tolling begins with the filing of a return as of its due date.It is not unusual for both parties to dispense with the tolling of a statute of limitations while an audit is underway — the taxpayer because he may get a better deal, the iRS because they are plodders. Often penalties and interest are waived in return for this consideration.Here is a link:…JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          19. Salt Shaker

            Ha, my brother works for the IRS in DC. Not sure what he does exactly these days, but he’s not an attorney, although his wife is (Georgetown Law w/ a senior position w/ Dept. of Energy). They have a beautiful home and a friggin great life. A bit dull for me, frankly, though I’m admittedly occasionally envious.

          20. JLM

            .Years ago I was involved with trying to save Mutual Benefit Life of Newark’s (a company chartered before the Civil War) Texas real estate portfolio. We knew the Chairman and they were drowning with Fisher Island and Williams Island in Florida.We took over their Texas portfolio and made some real improvements. it was a big portfolio.In comes a “turnaround” company whose main contact was Jon Koskinen — the guy running the IRS and the guy who needs to be impeached.Brilliant guy. Sharp as Hell. Rhodes Scholar. Lawyer. A much younger guy than the one you see today. He had hair.When he saw how much money we were about to make under our turnaround contract, he screwed us and terminated the contract — perfectly legal under insurance company liquidation laws of NJ which gave them a complete right to terminate any contract the second they declared they were insolvent.Still, we hit a very good lick and dramatically increased their cash flow.I used to spend a lot of time in Newark, wherein I developed a taste for paella and a hot dog with French fries on it on a huge bun.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          21. LE

            It’s actually always been interesting to me that they don’t collect more revenue by employing more auditors and beefing the system up. They obviously have political reasons for not pestering (even ordinary) people to much by not creating the equivalent of a small town speed trap. The funding isn’t there but it’s clear the reason for that.

          22. JLM

            .Federal Revenue is at an all time high! That’s why one knows we have a SPENDING problem. We have plenty of revenue.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          23. sigmaalgebra

            Does anyone want to document where all the revenue is going, i.e., what all the spending is that totals more than the revenue, e.g., in comparison with W, Clinton, Bush 41, etc.? Naw, I thought not.

          24. JLM

            .They’re too busy weaponizing the IRS to go after Tea Party non-profits.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          25. Anthony

            It’s not unprecedented. VC-backed companies incurs massive losses while they chase valuation (and avoid taxes). Uber is on track to lose $2 billion this year. Amazon lost $3 billion before turning a profit.The difference between Trump & VC-backed companies is they risk other people’s money. Trump figured out how to become a billionaire without VC. That’s perhaps another reason why VCs don’t like him. He’s a living example that they aren’t always necessary.

          26. Salt Shaker

            So let me ask, does assuming so much personal risk really make him a smart biz person?

          27. Anthony

            Yes because he made it work. Many of the best businesses took on large amounts of risk early. We all have different risk tolerances. Your risk tolerance doesn’t correlate with your intellect, but your results do.

          28. Salt Shaker

            He didn’t make it work at all. Numerous bankruptcies, plus if he was so successful doing what he was doing he wouldn’t have flipped the model to licensing instead of investing his own capital. Now that was a smart play, particularly since he did create a perception of value in the Trump name, but to assume his $900m+ in write-offs is a stroke of genius is both revisionist history (and what politicians in particular do quite well) and plain luck (which is often needed in biz).Plus, Trump’s risk was personal, it wasn’t just a biz risk. If this wasn’t Trump himself and you described the same history to him about a third-party, he no doubt would characterize that individual as a “loser.”

          29. Anthony

            VCs invest in businesses that fail all the time. Like them, Trump isolates his ventures so that one failure doesn’t affect the others.Trump is worth billions & created 30,000+ jobs. It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend Donald Trump isn’t successful.

          30. Salt Shaker

            Trump invests in a singular vertical, RE; he doesn’t have a diversified portfolio like most VC’s. (I discount outright here Trump water, steaks, Chinese made clothing and educational services.) We do have an inkling of Trump’s financials based on a partial tax return from 1995 showing a $900M+ loss. Who’s to say there weren’t similar losses in several subsequent years? No one knows Trump’s net worth, it’s all sheer speculation, not that I frankly care if it’s $1B or $10B. One’s net worth certainly doesn’t qualify one for the Presidency, but lack of experience, temperament and respect for others does. Note: I’m hardly an HRC advocate, far from it, but I do believe she’s a better choice.

          31. JLM

            .Trump is much more successful than the average VC by quantum orders of magnitude. I’ve been to his Charlottesville Vineyard and it’s a beauty.Here’s the website:<iframe width=”845″ height=”475″ src=”…” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=””></iframe>The guy is a builder. The winery is run by his son, Eric, and, of course, the GM is a woman.Look at this video and tell me what a fuckup Trump is. Oh, yeah, tell me what HRC has ever built.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          32. creative group

            Salt Shaker:communicating with the supporters of Trump is like being in the Matrix. They will always attempt to keep you in the artificial environment.Trump supporters are wishing away Trumps statements, lies, and every other ism he continues to deploy. Smoke and mirrors.They will support the Manchurian Candidate even if he comes out and says I continue to hoodwink them.

          33. Anthony

            You could say the same about many Hillary Clinton supporters. Hillary lies to no end. According to Colin Powell she has unbridled ambition & greed. I also happen to be from Upstate, NY where she quickly came after her husband’s presidency to begin her advance towards the white house.She promised us 200,000 jobs and delivered nothing. Since she became a NYS senator my home town declined from ~40,000 people to ~15,000 as I watched almost every manufacturing company leave.Sadly, my small company is now the 2nd largest employer in my town.

          34. creative group

            Anthony:We agree with you more than you agree with yourself. We are registered Independents from first registering to vote.We know both party machines are not doing America many favors. Special interest control both parties.We just can’t believe those who claim to be Republicans are supporting a non Republican candidate. He is a populist candidate. There were viable Republican choices that were not selected. (Kasich)The Republican party is dead. The Ult-Right (Robert reclusive crazy man Mercer) is in the cat seat pulling the strings. Racism is alive. Denial will not make that disease disappear. Good luck with that sinking ship. Four more years of the Republican party obstruction and demonizing HRC as the birthers did Obama. The get nothing done party. No meaningful legislation since Reagan.#UnequivocallyUnapologeticallyIndependent

          35. ShanaC

            That is different than a person though.Is the management of uber losing that much on thier personal taxes

          36. Anthony

            It’s not. The founders of Uber, and every other VC-backed startup, primarily compensate themselves through valuation gains. They intentionally run losses to avoid taxes while focusing exclusively on valuation. Eventually they cash in on the valuation of their business & only pay the incredibly low capital gains tax.For example, Uber is worth roughly $60 billion now, but they lose $2+ billion each year. The CEO’s stock is worth ~$6 billion. When he cashes it in he only pays capital gains. He’s able to grow the valuation of Uber & amass a fortune for himself while almost completely avoiding taxes.Because Uber runs massive losses, they pay nothing in taxes and likely won’t for a very long time. By avoiding taxes, they deploy all their resources towards driving valuation without having to give anything to the government along the way.

          37. LE

            If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. I never forget the person years back who said that to me.Comeback story? TV show with huge success. Flies around in big jet. Lives in a nice place. Has significant assets. Maybe not 10 billion but enough to buy what he wants. Has international fame. Can get a meeting with anyone (most of this is pre run for Pres to be sure now many just hate him).And of course he is not going to show his tax returns to the peanut gallery. Could be simply because there are things that in context would appear to be wrong or if vetted some more could be in gray areas.Also you know the way it works in public. If something has attention it has scrutiny and that scrutiny makes the public officials treat you worse than if nobody cares about the outcome. We see that now with the rush to release police tapes quickly when someone is shot. In any other case if you went to the police and demanded something like that w/o media attention they would laugh at you.Bezos lost money for more years than Trump did btw.

          38. Anthony

            I’m not suggesting we raise capital gains. See my initial comment. It’s only explaining why VCs mostly favor Democrats.Raising income taxes makes founders more reliant on VCs for capital and, since VCs primarily pay capital gains, it’s totally in their self-interest to support candidates that seek to increase other forms of taxation.

          39. JLM

            .Let me tell you a funny twist about getting rid of the “carried interest” rule in VC, PE.It will allow sponsors (tax paying VCs and PEs) to use fund losses as offsets to ordinary income. In the past, these were capital gains/losses which were unable to offset ordinary income.If you think what a VC/PE guy does is risky, they are going to be able to use enormous, well-timed losses to offset other ordinary income.[VC/PEs should be derisking their wealth by investing in real estate and leaving the risk in their funds and fund investments. This is not rocket science.]Since many of the LPs are non-taxpaying entities (pension funds, endowments), I predict a spate of “special allocation” rules to attribute all of the losses to the “operating/active” partner much the same as the 1986 real estate tax changes did.The gains will simply follow the money.It is an even sweeter deal than Warren Buffett’s secretary.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          40. JLM

            .I did not read that into what you said.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          41. LE

            I agree that it benefits VC’s going forward. But honestly I don’t think that is what is motivating USV at all to support Hillary.

          42. Anthony

            I’m sure it’s not the only reason, but it’s a big motivator.Other reasons include being so out of touch with the problems facing the poor & middle class that they support policies that sound nice but hurt the most disadvantaged members of society.It’s incredibly convenient to believe you’re righteous while supporting policies that help you financially and hurt those who need help the most.

        2. pointsnfigures

          Disagree with that 100%.

          1. Anthony

            You can disagree, but I am still correct.

      2. scottythebody

        HRC and the democrats are in bed with big finance AS OPPOSED TO TRUMP and the REPUBLICANS? Ridiculous.

        1. pointsnfigures

          Both are in bed with big finance. I don’t have a problem with them having a relationship with big finance. I have a problem with the revolving door from the private/public sector that exists.

          1. creative group

            pointsnfigures:Both parties are in bed with the Financial sector and educated people realize why shouldn’t they be. People in the Financial sector vote. They pay taxes. They are a constituent.(pointsnfigures are back using the small p? Was that a clone on the post with the capital P?)

          2. Anthony

            See my comment above.

        2. Anthony

          Not ridiculous. VCs want higher taxes to pressure founders to turn to them. Those in finance make money by chasing valuation upon which they only have to pay a minimal capital gains tax.By contrast, privately owned businesses don’t benefit from valuation gains. They earn their money by generating profits, upon which, they pay substantial taxes all along the way.Most of HRCs policies hurt privately owned companies and push them to accept investors & eventually become public. Public companies compensate their founders, investors & employees via stock options, upon which, they only pay capital gains.Additionally, her desire to raise the estate tax to 65% puts private companies at a major disadvantage. Since they don’t have the same liquidity as public companies, private businesses are forced to buy expensive life insurance policies to cover the estate tax upon the death of their owner(s). This drains them of resources, thereby benefiting their public (or VC-backed) counterparts).My friend who sells life insurance is cheering for a Hillary victory because a 65% estate tax will create windfall profits for the life insurance industry. Perhaps that’s why these companies pay her $140 mil in “speaking fees” (i.e. bribes). She fully intends to deliver for them.

    4. Kirsten Lambertsen

      Have you ever voted for a Democratic presidential candidate?

      1. pointsnfigures

        Have you ever voted Republican in a presidential race?

        1. Kirsten Lambertsen

          Yep. But I probably never will again. Guess I’ll grow old waiting for you to answer a question with an answer 😉

          1. pointsnfigures

            I have voted for a Democrat in every other election except President. I have voted third party more than once for President.

          2. Kirsten Lambertsen

            I helped Matt Gonzalez nearly become Mayor of San Francisco 🙂 It was very very very close. Lost to Gavin Newsom. Those were great choices to have.

          3. pointsnfigures

            haha. I thought hell was starting to freeze over (a republican as the mayor of a large American city-especially a place like SF!) Hey, maybe it is a cure for global warming : )

    5. creative group

      pointsnfigures:that was a great question. USV was started by Progressives. And why would we think a non Progressive would land there. People hire and work with people of similar views.That is like the question of why do people who lean Republican or Independent contribute to dedicated blogs that represent their views.Because Fred’s blogs everyday and provides a platform for various views. There are a multitude of Republican leading VC’s that don’t employ or LP with Progressives. Robert Mercer and Paul Singer to name just two.We spread the spotlight on both parties. (Fair and really balanced)#UnequivocallyUnapologeticallyIndependent

      1. pointsnfigures

        I don’t have a problem with Progressives at all. Some good friends of mine are Progressives. Often, we see the same problems and have very different solutions. Those solutions come out of what we fear, or what we interpret as the best path. However, when you get a bunch of homogenous people together, it’s critically important to bring a diverse opinion in. The Catholic Church invented the Devil’s Advocate. I believe one of the failings in both the Bush and Obama administrations has been groupthink. No reason it would change under Hillary Clinton.

        1. Lawrence Brass

          There is a huge reason for things to change under the most probable HRC government, and it is to do the necessary adjustments and changes to avoid having someone like Trump or Trump himself in an election again. He is the product of a flawed system, a crack in the structure, an accident.My guess though is that Republicans will have to do the cleaning.

    6. ShanaC

      Vote trading is a good option if you think voting for a third candidate is a good idea, but also feel it may throw the election

  11. David Yoken

    Never heard of a VC firm endorsing a candidate, but I’m liking this.

    1. onowahoo

      You dropped this:/s

  12. Joe Marchese

    Especially like the links to register. That’s the key message. There are more than enough people to elect either of the major party candidates, so turnout will be critical. See Brexit and Colombia if you doubt it. I call people who don’t vote, but complain about the outcomes, ‘passholes’.

  13. maquignon

    The country of Haiti has been ravaged by Hurricane Matthew. Residents are saying “this is nothing compared to what Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation did to us.”

  14. Salt Shaker

    A broken system.In the earliest days of our country’s government the candidate with the highest electoral votes was elected President and the candidate with the second highest votes elected Vice President, irrespective of party. Back then a party’s nominee didn’t chose his/her running mate. For example, in 1796 John Adams, a Federalist, was elected President, while the candidate w/ the second highest votes, Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, was elected Vice President.What this approach insures is two-party representation in the Executive branch, and perhaps the unlikelihood of our experiencing the smarmy, distasteful campaign we see today cause candidates know they’ll potentially be working side-by-side w/ an opponent. (Trump most certainly wouldn’t run under such conditions, and at this juncture, Clinton likely wouldn’t either.) In theory, campaigns would become less personal and far more issues based.This approach could also create stronger opportunities outside the current two-party stranglehold, including the creation of more parties and a broader array of candidates, while lending more credibility and responsibility to the office of Vice President. It potentially could also reduce partisan politics between a controlling party of Congress (Senate, House or both) and the Executive branch cause the latter, once elected, would have multi-party representation.Radical? Perhaps. Imperfect? Of course, but our current system of government w/ partisan politics and outside influences is so flawed a radical change is needed, not only w/ candidates from outside the system, but w/ how we vote them into office. With a dominant two-party system and voting along party lines “we the people” actually contribute to stacking the deck w/ verticals to a greater extent than we generally acknowledge.Gov’t is more effective when a system is built for compromise versus one where partisan silos frequently leads to obstructionism. Nobody wins under that scenario. A system that allows for other voices and broader representation starting at the highest level, the Executive branch, is perhaps a good thing.

  15. johnmccarthy


  16. creative group

    CONTRIBUTORS:Term limits are instituted in the Executive branch, Governors offices, Mayoral Offices but not Congress…Term limits can solve or mitigate the hold of special interests and hold the people who allowed Citizen’s United Supreme Court decision to be held accountable.Every incumbent no matter party needs to go.#UnequivocallyUnapologeticallyIndependent

    1. Lawrence Brass

      I agree with you, unlimited terms are an important source of corruption in representative democracies. The downside of term limits is that experienced and honest people whose only wish is to serve, are lost. Nobody can guarantee that rotten apples will be absent in the next batch.If we look at a legislative body as if it were a living organism, it is inevitable that it will evolve in ways such that it will protect itself from ‘external’ forces, corrupting the principles of its foundation which is what can be observed in some western democracies.In ancient democracies, which can be considered elitist applying or current standards to the point that there are people that disqualify using them as examples, a number of representatives were designated through a lottery among people that didn’t necessarily had the skills or preparation. The voting population also had an annual vote in which they could remove a representative without trial.I am an optimist, I think the connectivity that the internet brought to society will lead to better democracies. My doubt is if the changes needed can be expected to originate from within the organisations or from the outside.I know it was a crazy and idealistic plan, but I liked what Larry Lessig proposed.

      1. creative group

        Lawrence Brass:lets not forget the Founders of the United States never intended for those serving in Congress to be professional Politicians. The majority served and then returned to their professions. (Professions!)Being a Politician isn’t a profession.#UnequivocallyUnapologeticallyIndependent

    2. pointsnfigures

      For term limits-and ending the revolving doors. But, something must be done to trim the regulatory state way back.

  17. onowahoo

    A protest vote is a wasted vote as opposed to any other vote? You have a better chance of winning the lottery than your vote making a difference. Especially if you’re not in a swing state.

  18. smk

    You say a protested vote is a wasted vote? Lets see, we all believe in the free market because we like competition. Whoever said you’re only allowed to have two political parties? Isn’t competition also good in the political system? So if neither candidate from the two main political parties is up to the job, who in their right mind would not support a more competition? Especially if one of the other candidates looks like a better pick? A little logic here???

  19. Dan Epstein

    For folks not reading the link about why a protest vote is a wasted vote, an excerpt:People who believe in protest votes do so because they confuse sending a message with receiving one. You can send any message you like: “I think Jill Stein should be President” or “I think David Duke should be President” or “I think Park Eunsol should be President.”Similarly, you can send any message you like by not voting. You can say you are sitting out the election because both parties are neo-liberal or because an election without Lyndon LaRouche is a sham or because 9/11 was an inside job. The story you tell yourself about your political commitments are yours to construct.But it doesn’t matter what message you think you are sending, because no one will receive it.

    1. pointsnfigures

      Gary Johnson is the alternative this election. Hardly like anyone you characterize above.

  20. bethmar7tin

    If ever there was a time to vote for a third party, it is now. We have two of the most unpopular candidates in history. If people fall in line and vote for the two major parties the message will be clear: they never need to improve upon the candidates they put forth. And they never will. They only need to convince people the other is more scary. A history of voting for lesser evils–if there even is one— has caused this current election. After carefully considering all four choices (Trump, Clinton, Stein, Johnson), I’m going with Stein, and I don’t feel I am wasting anything.

  21. James Ferguson @kWIQly

    I can only imagine some regulars might not see eye to eye on this.But I am certain that the VAST majority of the free-world (outside the US – yes much of it is) agrees with the USV sentiment.I am no fan of Hillary, in fact I see her as a sub-par politician with some questionable record.But I am absolutely sure she is less dangerous for the world, and see the tech situation as a mere microcosm in terms of its importance in that bigger picture.Oh I forgot to mention – I do dislike ignorant racist misogynist bigots and think they cause a lot of problems in the world.Let him fade back into irrelevance – please.

    1. Anthony

      It’s ironic, a lot of people would say Hillary is a racist, misogynist, bigot. I think what you don’t like is someone that is blunt & perhaps a bit crude. I judge actions not words. Trump’s actions are anything but what you describe.Hillary started her career shaming a 12 year old rape victim by arguing she wanted it and succeeded in getting the guy off.…Since then there’s been an endless list of women who have come forward to explain how Hillary attacked them and probably many who have not.Her attitude towards African Americans is “deplorable” and she’s said many of the same things as Trump regarding Mexico. See:…Those comments hardly make either of them racist. Line cutting isn’t exactly fair when others wait to come here legally. Hillary’s flip flop once she realized she could brand Trump “racist” to court the latino vote is disturbing.

  22. Val Tsanev

    Good move to endorse a specific presidential candidate, nothing wrong with that. The only problem is that in the grand scheme of things not that many people have heard of USV except people in the startup community, so will not move the needle that much but every vote and opinion counts. What I am personally more excited about is that LeBron James endorsed Clinton in the swing state of Ohio and he most definitely has the influence and the pull to move the needle in that state. LeBron is glorified in Ohio for obvious reasons. If DJT does not get Ohio, it is most definitely game over, but even if he gets it still the reality remains that his chances are extremely slim to none of becoming POTUS. Probability of Trump becoming President as of today stand at 19% based on statistical models, which are obviously not biased.

  23. Twain Twain

    THIS: “We cannot unilaterally set the rules for the other seven billion people on the planet. The only way forward is through an open, respectful, and rational dialogue grounded in science.”The top US techcos have formed Partnership in AI:* http://www.partnershiponai….Research has emerged that shows, unfortunately, the AI to-date has been biased (sexist, racist, unrepresentative of the diversity of users and their intelligence etc.).The US needs help from the Rest of the World’s art, science, philosophy and languages if the big US techco’s are to:(1.) Get the machines to understand natural language, including non-English ones;(2.) Enable the machines to appreciate cultural diversity; and(3.) Ensure the machines have a nuanced understanding of morals and ethics from culture to culture.Some of the most interesting work in AI is being done by folks of Chinese origin who went to the US to study and stayed to contribute to US wealth creation and educating the next generation of technologists.That’s why these elections are important.https://uploads.disquscdn.chttps://uploads.disquscdn.chttps://uploads.disquscdn.c

  24. DJL

    Okay. I really want to understand this. (I promise.)To me the biggest issues regarding business and the economy are the corporate tax rate and regulations. We currently have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. (We also allow large tech companies like Google, Uber, Apple, etc. to dodge billions in taxes by going overseas.) Hillary Clinton promises to raise taxes on the most taxed business and increase regulations on the most-regulated. This does nothing but put us at a huge international disadvantage.So am I to understand the Venture Capitals – as a group – think that raising taxes and increasing regulations on corporations is the solution to create jobs and grow the economy? My guess is that this endorsement is based more on ideology than economics. But I am open….

    1. Cam MacRae

      We currently have the highest top marginal corporate tax rate in the world OECD and the third highest top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world.

    2. LE

      Predictability vs. unpredictability I think it boils down to.

  25. Luke Davies

    There are some strong rational points here but it sure doesn’t sound like an endorsement. It sounds like a cry for help form smart people that are afraid of what Donald Trump would do as president. Its too bad there isn’t a candidate that you could actually endorse for their platform / expertise.

  26. Sam


  27. Tom Labus

    The is no debate here. Mrs. Clinton for president.The GOP needs to figure out how to join the 21st century or they’re toast.

    1. JLM

      .Particularly after that ass kicking in 2014 when the country gave the Republicans the Senate, increased their lead in the House, and rewarded them with more Governors and Statehouses, eh?Ooops, my bad. The Republicans won that one. Sorry.Yeah, the biggest barbed wire since the 1920s, that’s something we should forget about, no?Scoop — those angry persons haven’t gone away. They’ve gotten angrier.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

      1. cavepainting

        House races are gerrymandered. Not to mention that mid-terms always help the party not in the white house.The Presidential race is very different. You are using the same argument Mitt Romney’s supporters used in 2012. That, given the reverses in 2010 and Obamacare, Mitt will win in a landslide.

        1. JLM

          .House districts are apportioned every ten years based on the ten year census. They will not be re-apportioned until 2020.Apportionment is done by state legislatures and only applies to House seats. The gains made in the Senate, Governors mansions, and State houses are independent of your suggestion.The 2010 mid-terms were nothing like the 2014 elections, the greatest reversal in a century.Obamacare is a bigger disaster than ever.We shall see.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  28. LE

    Trump has what I call stage 4 mental issues and in that sense he did us all a favor. Had the condition been less severe he might have held it together (like the abusive husband or wife) during the courtship phase and unleashed the wrath after he got what he wanted. (That’s possible to have control like that with stages 1 through 3 my own personal research shows). [1]The politically incorrect things that he says never really bothered me, the fact that he can’t play the game and control himself even to a small extent when his candidacy depends on it really does and makes it a non-starter. We actually should be thankful for that. As I’ve said I think it’s either lack of sleep making him that crazy or simply he doesn’t actually deep down want to win the election.The idea that one person by force of will would be able to change the average mediocre people who work for massive government never would be possible anyway. Even if you put better managers in charge. Not going to happen.On the upside the fact that Hillary is in the pocket of the money interests means that taxes hopefully won’t go up that much to pay for all of those social programs.My feeling was that when Hillary graduated college she was that young idealistic co-ed that Sigma Algebra talks about here. But years later and as early as when Bill was first running for governor she became mostly pragmatic and self serving. So at least she’s not Bernie. And she will totally do the nasty with all of the promises she made to him.[1] I’ve been with people like that. They are the people that in public everyone thinks are just the nicest people but they completely unleash their fury on those that are close to them behind closed doors.

    1. JLM

      ,HRC has already announced huge tax increases.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  29. Crocodile Bungee

    American politicians worry me. 90% seem to be daleks, 5% salesmen and 5% cheats and liars. And it’s not good – despite the heroic effort of this post to appear rational – that the single most important quality of both main candidates is that they are not the other guy.

  30. Odeeo

    I was let down when I saw the title of this email in my inbox, but then was glad to see it is not truly an endorsement of Hillary by USV, rather a vote against Trump. I get a vote against either of the candidates, but honestly cannot understand who would “choose” to vote for Hillary. She’s as qualified as anyone else, but corruption has infiltrated our government and I believe she would take that even further- destroying what the USA is all about 🙁

  31. Mitch Kline

    Not commenting on endorsement, just perspective. Great Op-Ed in Detroit Free Press by Mitch Albom on Shimon Peres last week. Excerpt below-“What is undeniable is that Peres was fully dedicated to his country, whether you agreed with him or not, and brought wisdom, perspective intelligence and a soul to the government.Meanwhile, at the same time his grave site was being prepared, America’s top political story was what one presidential candidate, Donald Trump, said about a beauty pageant winner nearly 20 years ago, a topic raised with cool calculation by his opponent, Hillary Clinton.This was what we spent days debating.We have 300 million people in this country. As I think back on that memorable lunch, I can’t help but wonder where are our statesmen? Where are our leaders with soul? Where are our best and brightest who see public service as an honor, a calling, leaders you can actually look up to?Upon his death, Shimon Peres wanted to donate his organs. His corneas will be used to help others see. Too bad his inner vision wasn’t transferable. It’s in dire need, particularly now.

  32. Paul Brown

    In any normal year (i.e., a year without someone like Trump), Hillary would be toast. She’s the least popular presidential nominee in a hundred years, next to Trump. I imagine it’s pretty hard for anyone other than most the committed and hard-headed Democrat partisans to be very excited about voting for her. I don’t buy the “any other vote is a waste” argument. Votes are signals. I want to signal to both major parties that the people they nominated are utterly unacceptable to me. You honestly don’t think Ross Perot, who enabled Clinton to win, didn’t send a signal? Nonsense.

    1. JLM

      .Ross Perot, of course, created both WJC and HRC. I’d like to strangle him.1992 electionWJC — 43%GHWB — 37.4%RP — 18.9%1996 electionWJC — 49.2%Bob Dole — 40.7% << WTF did the Republicans think here?RP — 8.4%In both elections, WJC did not win as big a plurality as his opponents.WJC should be a trivia question and, instead, Ross Perot, twice, made him President.No WJC Presidency, no HRC candidacy. She is only a weak shadow of him and he is a poseur, a fakir, and a naif with a troubling sex addiction — though there may be some extenuating or mitigating evidence there, no?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  33. Philippe Platon

    Positive leaders with a positive vision on the future are what we need. There is only one in this election so I ‘m glad to see most sensible people I know make this endorsement. Back here in France I hope we’ll be proposed an equally valuable alternative. Far from granted yet.

  34. Kirsten Lambertsen

    Or maybe she’s just the most qualified and accomplished candidate I’ve seen in my lifetime. A very short list:- instrumental in securing $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site’s redevelopment. Subsequently took a leading role in investigating the health issues that 9/11 first responders were facing.- worked to investigate illnesses affecting Veterans of the Gulf War; now commonly known as Gulf War Syndrome.- created an Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.-worked with Republicans and Democrats to help create the Children’s Health Insurance Program. CHIP cut the uninsured rate of American children by half, and today it provides health care to more than 8 million kids.- as secretary of state, made LGBT rights a focus of U.S. foreign policy. Lobbied for the first-ever U.N. Human Rights Council resolution on human rights and declared that “gay rights are human rights.” Made the State Department a better, fairer place for LGBT employees to work.- worked across the aisle to expand health care access for members of the National Guard and reservists—making sure those who served and their families had access to health care when they returned home. Worked to expand the Family Medical Leave Act, allowing families of those wounded in service to their country to take leave in order to care for their loved ones.I’m not voting for the lesser of two evils. I’m voting for a great candidate.

    1. JLM

      .Just joshing you, Kristen, but WHO are you voting for? I thought you said there was a “great candidate”?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

      1. LE

        Did you ever talk to a salesman over the years, and I’m sure you have, that describes a particular customer of theirs as a “nice guy”. This typically means that the customer makes the salesman’s life easy and does what he wants most of the time and doesn’t drive to hard of a bargain or waste their time. This is similar to politics. You like the people and champion those who align with your thinking and do what you think is important. Obvious I know. [1]I am sure there are people who will vote for the candidate that is aligned with the transgender bathroom issue in the way they see fit. Completely ignoring the bigger picture in terms of what really might matter.Missing from Kristen’s list was anything Hillary does for the super predators and the communities they live in which honestly is a much larger problem in this country than what they do overseas with the LGBT issues.[1] The latest I have heard (from my wife no less) is this love of Michelle Obama. Her and others just like the look and feel of the woman. I am sure she would vote for Michelle if given the chance when she runs for office in 4 or 8 years.

        1. JLM

          .Put me down as one for whom the ability to use whichever bathroom I am feeling is a huge step forward for American and mankind.However, it has its attendant problems.I was in Target the other day and couldn’t decide how I was really feeling.Progress has its problems.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          1. LE

            Rome is burning while Nero fiddles. This is the shit we spend our time discusses in this great country. The fault lies squarely with social media and the rise in cable channels years ago and the 24 hour news cycle.

          2. JLM

            .I wish it were just Rome. The Middle East is getting very dicey.When the Russians, Iran, Iraq, Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad get done destroying Syria and put Assad back in the Presidential palace, where do they go next?I think it’s Israel or Jordan.Turkey is in play with the Russians. If the Russians put together Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Hamas, Hezbollah and start looking at Tel Aviv or Saudi Arabia? Who’s going to jump in?The Russians aren’t going to forget the 1973 Yom Kippur War which was decided by a hair’s breadth. That was the Russians and Assad’s father.This shit is going to get very dicey at a time when we have the smallest military since WWII.Take a go at Ukraine and Taiwan, will they?We are weak, weakly led, and unreliable.It is a very dangerous time.Make no mistake, the Russians are trying out all their new weapons in Syria, a la Spanish Revolution and Hitler’s Germany.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

        2. Lawrence Brass

          Very reasonable, you may be seeing the future. Michelle Obama would be an excellent candidate.What if she was on the ballot against Trump or against Clinton in a primary, has anyone run that poll?

        3. Stephen Palmer

          There is really only one political party that has fought for African Americans and other minorities, so it’s quite hypocritical to read this super-predator nonsense. Just look at the Republicans’ shameful attempts to suppress minority voting in places like North Carolina. Every attempt to slash the safety net has come from them. The tea party was a bunch of phonies who didn’t care when big banks got bailed out, but bailing out poor homeowners or providing greater subsidies for Obamacare, that was worth protesting over!

    2. andyswan

      GHW Bush was VP for 8 years and the director of the CIA. cmon

      1. JLM

        .Vice President, Director Central Intelligence, Ambassador to China, Chmn RNC, UN Ambassador, Congressman, successful businessman, youngest pilot in the Navy during WWII, decorated war veteran, WASP.Ross Perot, I’d like to strangle you.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

      2. Kirsten Lambertsen

        All right, maybe he was nearly as qualified as she is.

    3. LE

      instrumental in securing $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site’s redevelopment. Subsequently took a leading role in investigating the health issues that 9/11 first responders were facing.A great example of entirely wasted pork. (As opposed to pork not wasted).The rest of what you have outlined is important to you and that’s fine. Don’t assume that it’s important to everyone and that someone who doesn’t feel that way is somehow not entitled to have a different opinion.

      1. Kirsten Lambertsen

        Don’t assume what I assume and don’t tell me what to assume.

        1. LE

          Don’t assume what I assumeThe known unknown.

          1. Kirsten Lambertsen

            Here’s the unknown unknown: Is healthcare for reservists unimportant to some people? Is caring for Gulf War vets unimportant to some?I just don’t like the ‘lesser of two evils’ frame. It’s B.S. I’m not saying she’s perfect, but she’s a helluva lot better than a lesser evil.This lesser evil thing happens every election and it’s why people are jaded about voting. We all need to grow up and realize that candidates aren’t perfect. I actually considered Obama a lesser evil when I voted for him. I now realize how small-minded that was of me.Everyone’s a lesser evil in all walks of life in one way or another.

          2. JLM

            .Haha, that is really funny and anyone who has ever served understands how damn accurate such a thing is. Haha. Also, a great movie.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          3. JLM

            .Bit of color on that BS about healthcare for reservists?The Obama administration tried to offload Gulf War wounded post-conflict care on the personal insurance of the reservists and national guardsmen themselves. They actually did this.This despite the long established precedent and law that any wounded soldier is not discharged until healed, completely. We still have grievously wounded men (primarily amputees) at Valley Forge Hospital from Viet Nam.I know because I used to visit someone I served with until he died in that shithole.While on active duty, a soldier is entitled to direct medical care from military hospitals, such as Walter Reed Hospital.Service connected disabilities which bubble up after a man is discharged are covered by the Veterans Administration — a freakin’ nightmare, trust me.All this law did was to clarify that the incredibly cruel treatment of returning wounded veterans was not going to be foisted upon the soldier’s personal insurance company.To laud this treatment is to laud putting whipped cream on bullshit and calling it a birthday cake.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          4. LE

            Kristen, you said “I’m voting for a great candidate”. That’s pretty clear to me. You also said “Or maybe she’s just the most qualified and accomplished candidate I’ve seen in my lifetime”. You didn’t list even a single “to be sure” about her. I acknowledged more negatives about my sports car when I tell people how much I love it.And apparently the fact that Trump has so many votes clearly shows that she is viewed by man as the lesser of two evils. (That said people are idiots so take that with a grain of salt I will give you that but quite frankly it surprises me..).Obama was actually quite unqualified when he was elected which is ironic given the fact that many people lean on the Hillary choice by resting on her qualifications as the reason.The qualifications are actually a red herring anyway. And the qualifications can actually get in the way as well. Because what you know also creates a bias an an unwillingness to consider creative solutions to problems.

          5. Kirsten Lambertsen

            I think we’re at a point in our relationship where it’s only fair to tell you that my name is KIRsten, not KRIsten 😉

          6. JLM

            .Haha, good one. Are you sure?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          7. Kirsten Lambertsen

            Sometimes I wonder! Heh.

    4. kidmercury

      dont forget the following:1. supported every war/invasion she’s been around enough for2. covered up bill’s rapes3. clinton foundation accepted donations that violated ethics agreement with obama administration4. illegally maintained private email server 5. supported repeal of glass-steagall that allowed banks to take on excessive risk and the ensuing mortgage crisis to result

    5. JamesHRH

      – had her aides in Vince Foster’s office removing files ( too many laws broken to count here) while her ‘friend’ was barely in the body bag and not even at the morgue.- if Monica doesn’t keep the dress, HRC probably hounds her to suicide as wellShe’s a productive person who is despicable, with a long track record of believing that her political career is so important that the laws of the land should not apply to her.I am not sure I could vote for Trump (he’s too lazy & undisciplined at this point), but I would hardly be proud to vote for a candidate with her character.

  35. sigmaalgebra

    But we also know that, to date, the benefits of technology and globalization have not been evenly distributed. Yes, but we could not expect an even (uniform) distribution. And, looking at Hillary and following the money, she’s for making the rich, especially herself, richer and ignoring the middle class and poor. The Clinton Foundation? A tax dodge for bribes and a slush fund for lifetime income for Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea.Globalization? That now is a buzz word with a large, hidden agenda. Mostly it means more power for the EU poobahs in Brussels, less autonomy for the countries of Europe, more power for the international losers and would-be poobahs of the UN, and ways to let China become much more powerful economically and militarily. The surface, public relations view of globalization is one world and world government. The reality of globalization is yet another way for some people to fight for advantage over others. I.e., to understand globalization, f’get about the four words Alle Menschen werden Brüder and pay attention to “Always look for the hidden agenda.” and the three words follow the money.People with access to education and capital have prospered while many others have seen good jobs lost to automation or offshoring. As Secretary of State, Hillary was working to help companies “offshoring” US jobs: At…we haveHillary Clinton’s State Department oversaw a government agency’s expenditure of millions of taxpayer dollars to help companies outsource American tech jobs to foreign countries. As a US Senator Hillary was working to send jobs of US citizens to citizens of Punjab:Clinton’s extensive financial, personal and political ties to these India-based companies prompted the campaign of then-political rival Sen. Barack Obama to label her “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)”– implying that Clinton represents foreign nations and foreign citizens rather than her own American constituents. Fordeveloping consensus solutions. Hillary’s approach is to push what her donors pay for. The only “consensus” is over the money — Hillary wants it and is plenty eager to sell out the US to get it.We are not surprised that many feel the urge to reboot the whole system. That may be what the Bernie people wanted. It’s not what Trump supporters or Trump want.We agree that more of the same is not the answer. Hillary is very much the candidate of “more of the same” we’ve had for the past 7 1/2 years under Obama and also for the neo-con policies of dumping foreign leaders — Saddam, Assad, Gaddafi.The only candidate of “change” is Trump.ensure that the benefits of technology and innovation are shared by society as a whole. Hillary is interested most of all in money and power for Hillary. In no way is Hillary interested at all in ensuring ANYTHING for “society as a whole.”Moreover, Hillary’s record is clear — she is 99 44/100% totally unable to do anything significant and good on anything significant. E.g., look at her record as a US Senator — three bills to name post offices after some people or some such, and that was ALL. She promised to create jobs in Upstate NY, and instead Upstate NY lost jobs.Instead, of ensuring anything good, Hillary does well helping to create disasters — Gulf War II, ISIS, Libya, the war in Syria, the Iran deal, US trade deals that send US jobs and companies outside the US, importing into the US tens of thousands of poorly vetted people from areas dominated by radical Islamic jihader terrorism — she plans to make all of them US citizens soon after being elected — grand disaster.Hillary won’t even say radical Islamic terrorism. An excellent presentation of the real situation for the US from radical Islamic terrorism is in the (central part of the) Newt Gingrich RNC speech at…The candidate interested in a whole is Trump — he wants to make America prosperous, wealthy, safe, and great again.Shutting out the world is not an option. Trump is not proposing that. Instead, Trump is proposing to stop other countries from cheating on our trade deals, to getting our trade back in balance, and to enforcing long standing US laws, policies, and procedures on immigration.Trump is very much for trade, indeed, he has done very well in international business. Trump wants to get US trade in balance.We don’t think it’s desirable, or even possible, to return to an earlier era when America was less diverse, or the economy was less global. Diversity is one thing. Trump is for good versions of diversity. Indeed, Trump’s wife Melania is an immigrant.Much of Hillary’s approach to diversity is bringing in people devoted to Sharia law and dedicated to killing as many people as they can who have a different religion, including ASAP via WMDs. Literally true.Otherwise Hillary’s approach to diversity is to bring in people who would make the US more like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Columbia, Venezuela, etc.Moreover, Hillary wants to flood the US with slave labor; history has proven that slave labor is ugly and in the US costs too much in police protection, special teaching of English as a foreign language, welfare expenditures, etc. The slave labor Hillary wants will create ghettos of disasters and cost current US citizens their jobs. The slave labor benefits Hillary donors and costs everyone else in the US.Hillary’s immigration plans will hurt the US. The US will not become stronger, safer, or richer by importing the slave labor Hillary has in mind; instead, just the opposite is true — the US would become weaker, less safe, and poorer.Too many of the people Hillary wants to import would, as the dream of their lives, explode a WMD in NYC and kill one million US citizens — literally.Trump is for immigration, LEGAL immigration, of people selected with long standing US policies and procedures and who will help the US instead of hurting the US. There is NO good reason for the US to import people who would hurt the US. People who can help the US? Welcome! Otherwise? Nope.There is no wall big enough to protect us from a changing climate or the unintended consequences of new technologies like artificial intelligence or DNA manipulation. Trump’s wall is about stopping illegal immigration of people, nearly all of whom will hurt the US, and stopping illegal drugs, not about climate.For artificial intelligence (AI), that is 99 44/100% hype with no significant “consequences”, “unintended” or not.DNA manipulation has done terrific things for agriculture and stands to do great things for medicine. Mother Nature mixes up DNA every way she can, continually, by the nanoseconds. That humans now move around some DNA is no big threat.Now, more than ever, we must work together. Hillary divides the US — it’s part of the long standing Democrat playbook. Trump is the candidate who wants to and is working effectively to bring people together.We cannot unilaterally set the rules for the other seven billion people on the planet. Trump certainly is not proposing any such thing. The people doing that are the globalists, and one example is the EU; another is the Trans Pacific Partnership; another is the Paris stuff on carbon; etc.Obama/Clinton are in with the globalists.Trump is for the US first.Of the two major party candidates, we believe that only Hillary Clinton has the temperament and experience to lead us at home and represent us abroad. Hillary’s “temperament” is so awful she belongs in a psychiatric hospital, literally. E.g., as in…isAARON KLEIN3 Oct 2016NEW YORK — In an exclusive interview, Linda Tripp, a former White House staffer whose workspace was located directly adjacent to Hillary Clinton’s second floor West Wing office, confirmed long-reported accounts of the former First Lady throwing hard objects at Bill Clinton.Tripp further described what she characterized as Hillary Clinton’s significant temperament issues, including “endless screaming” and the constant use of profanity, as well as a general disdain for the U.S. electorate, the Armed Services and the honor and dignity of the institution of the American presidency, calling her public persona a “smoke and mirrors act.” Gary J. Byrne was a US Secret Service Agent working in the White House during Bill Clinton’s terms and recently wrote a book about what he observed. From that book, Hillary is a very NASTY person.Gary J. Byrne, Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate, June 28, 2016.From that account, out of the public eye but still in front of her staff, etc., Hillary commonly screams and throws things, hates and insults anyone in a uniform, etc.Otherwise, Hillary belongs in jail, e.g., as in FBI Director Comey’s presentation Hillary’s e-mail usage with “extremely careless”, for massive violation of section (f) of the US Espionage Act. That is, “extremely careless” is a case of “gross negligence” which is sufficient for violation of section (f).Hillary has had 30+ years of “experience” in her version of public service, but essentially all of that experience and service have been really bad for nearly everyone except Hillary who got rich.The public record demonstrates with overwhelming evidence that Hillary is really nasty, a flagrant liar, a seriously bad criminal, and from section (f) violations a US national security disaster. Otherwise, she essentially never accomplishes anything at all good for the US.Last night before bed I got out the DVDs of Victory at Sea, reviewed the battles at Midway, the Philippine Sea, and Leyte Gulf and was astounded, to tears of pride and joy, at the accomplishments of the US. At Midway, the US had two good carriers and one seriously damaged one. By Leyte, the US had about 24 new, fast fleet carriers in the Pacific and had taken the once astounding Imperial Japanese Navy back to nearly no pilots, nearly no fuel for its ships, and nearly no ships. Then with B-29s, a very expensive development, and just two bombs, an even more expensive development, the US won unconditional surrender.We had a lot of heroes — FDR, G. Marshall, D. Eisenhower, G. Patton, D. MacArthur, J. Rochefort, C. Nimitz, R. Spruance, W. Halsey, M. Mitscher, J. Oppenheimer, J. von Neumann, etc. including some immigrants, e.g.,…To think that we should have nasty, lying, crooked, degenerate, dysfunctional, dangerous, very sick in both mind and body, Hillary in the footsteps of those grand heroes is sickening, disgusting, despicable, and incomprehensible.I’m for Trump not really for my personal benefit. Indeed, with Hillary, while the US rots away, I might be better off. I’m against Hillary and for Trump for the good of the US.I find Trump sincere, dedicated to the US, extremely capable, a good leader, a good manager, a good judge of people, a good family man, very successful at business, determined, plain spoken, honest, empathetic, strong mentally and physically, energetic, and incorruptible with excellent judgment and character and well considered plans, policies, and principles.

  36. JLM

    .Damn, I was going to spend the day writing today but then I saw this. One is tempted to simply dismiss it on the basis of no evidence, its shallow assertions, and its complete disconnection from reality. That would, normally, be enough.Don’t get me wrong, I am not surprised nor am I critical of USV “endorsing” HRC. Why not? Not only do I defend their basic right to endorse whomever they want (frankly, I admire such an action rather than that wishy-washy recent screed on “temperament”), I just wish they had either some evidence to support their urgings or, at the very least, some historical perspective.Elections are binary and in that vein, HRC long ago disqualified herself for my consideration.I recently sang the praises of Miss Piggy for President. In fact, I beat Fred and USV to the punch by a few days. Miss Piggy for President:http://themusingsofthebigre…Absent Miss Piggy, I find HRC to be both unqualified and disqualified.In the course of disqualifying HRC, I rely upon her abject absence of any integrity as manifested by her continuous and increasing breaches of integrity starting with:1. her being kicked off the Watergate legal staff and being referred for bar discipline because of her legal misconduct,2. her cattle futures shenanigans,3. her Whitewater lies and her influence peddling (having been a real estate developer at the time, I love the obviousness of what happened here),4. the emergence of the Rose Law Firm billing records from Vince Foster’s office to the WH residence,5. her firing of the Travel Staff and the ensuing appointment of her cronies (Travelgate),6. her invention of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to explain why Monica Lewinsky was taking care of her husband’s libido (an unsatisfactory subcontracting arrangement only?),7. the lies told around HillaryCare,8. her theft of White House furniture and fixtures,9. her involvement in the slush fund called the Clinton Foundation,10. her wholesale aggrandizement of her speechifying career in which she has peddled the influence conveyed to her by the American people into a fop for Wall Street,11. her wholesale lies about small things — her name, being under sniper fire, and, of course12. her wholesale disregard for the safeguarding of classified information and the resulting security breaches and lies.The country we all love cannot be run by a crook. A grasping, grifter.This is a former Senator who authored only three bits of legislation which became law:1. S 3145 which named a portion of US 20A “Timothy J Russert Highway”2. S 3613 which named a Post Office for “Major George Quamo”3. S 1241 which named the home of Kate Mullaney (suffragist) a historic siteAsk Fred how this woman is going to get legislation passed to create the laudable objectives he sings the praises of?As to her foreign policy chops — one only has to look at Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, and China to give her failing grades. Not bad grades, failing grades.The Russian reset? Russia is emergent and has seized Crimea and become the dominant force in the Middle East completely undoing the brilliant Kissinger post-Yom Kippur War of 1973 diplomacy.She wants to extend the Obama leadership for a third term while the eponymous legislation of that era wallows in failure. An abject failure built on the same basis as her career — lies. Simple lies. Doctors, insurance companies, cost curves.Why would we do this?How one champions change while simultaneously being the failed state from which the change is made is a mystery to any person applying reason to the situation. How can you be in DC for a quarter century and also be a change agent?HRC is a promise of higher taxes, unfettered troubling immgration (as vouchsafed by none other than the Directors of FBI, CIA, DIA), and gluttonous spending.Of course, what I have outlined is fact and policy based and doesn’t rely upon such transcendental — whimsical one might say — notions as climate change, artificial intelligence, or (my personal favorite) DNA manipulation. Yes, the future of the world is going to be determined by DNA manipulation.Today, in Aleppo, the Russians will be bombing hospitals with 20,000 lbs bunker busting bombs because we have a feckless President trying, hopelessly, to execute a woefully inadequate foreign policy which will lead to massive deaths.The Russians, having taken Pres Obama’s measure and that of his former Sec of State, has decided to put the Assad regime back on its tarnished throne by brute force in one of the most despicable acts of violence in the history of the world.The Chinese have simply built a dozen islands in the South China Sea, astride 50% of the world’s sea lanes and have been unopposed. This was two decades in the making and while Sec of State, HRC did nothing.I find HRC not just unworthy of the Presidency by virtue of her lack of honor but totally unqualified by her personal, political failures. When one is confirming one’s biases, one doesn’t like to issue report cards.On the basis of fact and policy, I grade HRC an F minus.Of course, I do think we should all be focusing on what Trump said to a Miss Universe candidate who gained 60 lbs twenty years ago. Now, that, my friends, is REAL leadership and statecraft.Let me close by saying: I have been involved in politics since I was bribing City Councilmembers in my twenties in the 1970s. I’m a Precinct Chair, an Election Judge, and a member of the Travis County Republican Executive Committee. I sent my son to work in a Presidential campaign.No politician is going to ever deliver on all the pie-in-the sky baloney USV or Fred espouses in this blog post. What will happen is that every candidate will be worse on the things you hope they won’t be too bad on and not nearly as good on the ones for which you were hopeful. [Case in point — how did our first Black President manage to incite a race war in America?]There is a Santa Claus and Easter Bunny quality to politics. We only come together in times of extreme crisis.What is important to focus on is the state of the world and our enemies are coming for us. They are taking our measure and plotting at a point in time when we have allowed our military to contract to pre-WWII levels. We are vulnerable and if you have someone like HRC who has shit in our foreign policy messkit for her entire tenure as Sec of State, I, for one, don’t want to serve it up to the rest of the nation or world.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

    1. LE

      Interestingly, the dishonesty was actually a net gain for me. I remember way way back here saying to Fred that I liked the fact that she was a little slippery. I think it’s a necessary qualification actually.Let me pose this question to you. Would you rather have Hillary or Elizabeth Warren (if she was a bit more qualified)? At least Hillary pisses in the weeds with the big dogs and had that idealism tempered over the years.

      1. JLM

        .My only choices are not two different forms of the same cancer.To suggest that HRC has actually learned or accomplished anything is indicted by her actual record.I will spare you repetition but really? Foreign policy? Legislation?HRC is a fiction created by Ross Perot and WJC. At least Fauxcohontas did her own conjuring, no?Have to run, the sniper fire is building and I think it’s Comanches.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

        1. LE

          Well Hillary is going to be a good example of the saying “a camel is a horse designed by a committee”. She doesn’t think for herself so it will all fall on her team to come up with all the right moves. [1] (Opposite of Trump who takes near zero input).[1] I am not talking about the 1983 Tom Cruise movie.

    2. Dan Epstein

      Who do you think is the leader of the Republican party after this election?

      1. JLM

        .The Republican Party has ceased to exist in the manner in which we have known it in the past. That is not intended as a slur.If Trump prevails, an assumption solely for the benefit of this discussion, he will be the leader of some party which will inherit the name but it will not be the GOPe.The sides which will be left will be the DEMe of HRC (heirs to the triangulation strategy of WJC), the defunct GOPe of Mitt Romney and the dinosaurs, the discredited MSM, the wholly owned punditry, the Internet intelligentsia/Illuminati, and the Trumpians.As odd as that sounds, it is very similar to what happened when Reagan was swept into office and there were a newly identified species, the Reagan Democrats. Remember, Reagan started out as a Democrat.The problem with anointing leaders is they must, by definition, have followers. There will be a real shortage of followers in the DEMe and GOPe rolls.Even I was bewitched by Bernie. The guy was a freakin’ 74 year old Communist who had done nothing and he made HRC break out in hives and sweat and have to cheat to win the nomination.That isn’t going away. Next time around, Millenials (and other basement dwellers) will make up 35%+ of the voting age population.This craziness isn’t going anywhere.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

        1. Dan Epstein

          Whichever party loses, answering “why did we lose” is going to be interesting. I wonder if Trump is more of a reaction to Obama or Romney losing or something else entirely.

          1. JLM

            .When Obama won in 2012, the pundits said the GOP would be wandering in the desert for the next 40 years in much the same way folks thought Reagan was foreshadowing permanent Republican leadership control.Neither were correct.The 2014 elections, when Pres Obama said his policies (meaning Obamacare) were on the ballot, were decided by angry tool pushing white men and their wives. There was also no Obama Magic to deal with.That has not changed. That IS the anger DJT recognized and mined.To be as pragmatic as possible — the Founding Father’s checks and balances worked as planned when the Republicans had the Congress and Pres Obama had the White House.Not much got done other than by Exec Orders which are slowly being dismantled. The Obamacare nightmare is also slowly being unwound as the state exchanges go bankrupt and the insurance companies withdraw.”Last state out, turn out the lights?”Trump is an unusual individual who saw the anger and knew how to tap into it. That is neither an endorsement nor a suggestion he is right. It is what he did and the MSM and punditry helped him with obscene amounts of earned media.If he restricted himself to daylight Tweets, who knows where he might be?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

    3. cavepainting

      The country deserves a real debate on the role of government and by extension, taxation, and also our role in the world. There are really no easy answers or solutions to some of these vexing problems (like Syria) and a robust debate is necessary. Some of Obama’s policies have not worked but the alternatives need to be carefully examined.But Trump and his brand of politics has shifted the focus away from mutual respect and debating the issues to discussing people’s weight, racist commentary, late night twitter rants, demonizing sub-groups, etc. A smarter Republican candidate who had less baggage and more awareness (like a Jeb Bush) would have been a better general election candidate. Yes, he may have lacked the bombast and the charisma, but he was focused less on himself and more on the issues at stake.

      1. JLM

        .Agreeing with your first paragraph with the proviso that there is no chance in the world we will get that debate by electing:1. the chief architect of many of those foreign policy failures — Good God, she ran the Libyan debacle,2. a faux change agent who has been at the core of the status quo for a quarter century during which her 6 years in the Senate yielded three bills she sponsored which became law (all naming things, no real laws), or3. someone who has already vowed to raise taxes.Syria is a huge problem because of failed policies, false bravado, and an unwillingness to act.I never thought Pres Obama should have issued the famous “red line” threat and I knew immediately Assad would call his bluff and the Russians would never allow him to act upon it.Do you think the Obama White House was actually going to invade Syrian air space with the Russians in the theater? Not bloody likely.When the time came, he folded like a lightweight who wandered into a match with a heavyweight.Trump damn sure did call that fat ass Miss Universe “Miss Piggy” and for that alone he should be disqualified. I don’t care if it was 20 years ago and the girl gained 60 pounds.Hats off to HRC for bringing our attention to this. That’s real leadership and statescraft. I’m sure that exercise in principled leadership has been noted by our Russian and Chinese adversaries who are cleaning up their language right now.You double down on failed policies, you get four times as much failure.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

        1. cavepainting

          So, what would you recommend to a US President on Syria ? It is one of these problems from hell and I for one am glad that the President decided to not do anything. It is a horrible situation for civilians, but when all the guys fighting the war are bad guys ( from a US perspective), it is best to not engage. Are we prepared to lose lives of US men or women to fight a war in Syria ? Hell not.Dropping a few bombs may have felt like some kind of a moral victory, but what would it really achieve ? It took real guts to pursue the right solution (not do anything) above saving face. Obama has been vicious on terrorists with the drone program and you cannot really say he has been hesitant to use force when necessary. It is interesting that he gets blamed when he does (Libya), and when he doesn’t (Syria). You really cannot have it both ways.I know you do not like HRC, but I do believe that she is willing to learn and has the genuine interests of the vulnerable at heart. It appears that while 70 years of life has made HRC more humble and mature, it has done the opposite with Trump.Just like our flawed selves, there are no perfect candidates or perfect solutions. We all need to be willing to make compromises.

          1. JLM

            .I would, of course, NOT have done a lot of things that got done.I would have forced a SOFA on Iraq. A Status of Forces Agreement which would have created a toehold in Iraq would have prevented ISIS from taking root and creating strange bed fellows of the Iranians.What I would do today is simple –1. I would eliminate ISIS as a living organism. Once you cut off the head, I would eliminate the cells which are currently operating in 30+ countries around the world.2. I would create total American energy independence by getting in bed with Canada and Mexico and drilling the crap out of the US thereby eliminating the economic risk of the ME to the US homeland.As an adjunct, I would export NG to Eastern Europe to negate Russian pressure on winter NG supplies. This would also create a shit pot of jobs.3. I would withdraw from that part of the world except for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, and Egypt. I would surround the shitheads while keeping a weather eye on Libya.4. I would negotiate long term base agreements with each of those countries and rotate first line combat units (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines) through them to keep our enemies off guard.5. I would greenlight Israel on Hamas and Hezbollah with an eye toward eliminating them completely.As an adjunct, I would turn the Kurds loose (the only real fighters in the region) with American artillery, air, SOP support while forcing Turkey, Iraq, Iran to give them a homeland.6. I would re-invigorate NATO and put American armor back into Europe with an eye toward being able to move armor quickly to the Middle East and to be able to provide Russia a question mark as to the Ukraine and the Baltic states.7. I would never announce our military operations or capabilities publicly. I would have the whole world guessing where we are, what our intentions are, what we might do.8. I would interdict every movement of arms we detect anywhere in that region except for the Russians.9. I would rebuild our active duty military to an equivalent force of 750K men under arms with most of the additions being Army, Air Force pilots, and Marines.A lot of this stuff is right out of the speeches of guys like Petreaus, Matthis and guys who have very recent intel.Know this — if we had the right force structure, there is no army in the world which can hang with the Americans. We are just too damn small right now to get in a big fight with anyone.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          2. cavepainting

            Lot of great points I agree with. But… Trump does not talk about any of this. My challenge is really with his personality, willingness to learn and preparedness. It is a jump too far for many people to take.

        2. cavepainting

          Also, you are underestimating the impact of weight shaming as an issue with female voters. It really comes back to how a candidate is deemed to treat people., especially those who are struggling with something. If he is perceived as someone who would laugh at your situation than treat you with empathy, that’s a big problem.Who knows what is in his heart but the optics are bad.

          1. JLM

            .I concede the awesome impact of fat girl shaming on both the safety of the world and the future of the US. Of course, I admit that a 60 lbs weight gain is a big enchilada.I personally confess to having called my sisters Miss Piggy. I hereby agree not to seek the Presidency.Pretty small potatoes?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          2. cavepainting

            In any other case, it would have been small potatoes. But it is not in this instance as it confirms a pre-existing narrative that the candidate lacks empathy and treats people – especially women – as objects. Little things become big when they reinforce a pattern.

  37. Mica is awesome!

    I run a nonpartisan platform called Yabberz and I am seeing that there are many people who will be voting for Trump. I went to volunteer for Hillary at the phone banks yesterday and made calls in to Nevada and to my surprise there were many people who were undecided.For many Americans who are desperate for change and whose situation isn’t so great, they don’t see what I see….which is Trump is a really Bad change. If you are a Hillary supporter or even if you are not but think Trump is definitely not the answer, please don’t take this election for granted. Go out and vote, get your friends to vote, or volunteer for Hillary.

  38. awaldstein

    I applaud USV for having an opinion and taking a stand on what they think the best choice is and why.Good on you and the team!Been deep on my mind as I’ve been traveling and the election is a global conversation.My thoughts on it from the other day:

  39. scottythebody

    Good call, USV.

  40. jason wright

    ‘a protest vote is a wasted vote’ – i’ve gained the impression that your decision to vote for Clinton is a protest vote against Trump. The ‘wasted vote’ argument is such negative my view it should be illegal for companies and legal entities to publicly endorse a candidate. it can put undue pressure on employees in their voting choice. it’s a form of deterring democracy. we already have the obscene approach the mass media takes on behalf of its own commercial interests come election time. it’s perverse.

  41. DisentAgain

    As if there were another rational choice.

  42. Joah Spearman

    Thank you Fred and thank you USV for this important stance.

  43. JLM

    .@wmoug:disqusThere is a huge amount of data from which to ponder the issue of turnout. I get my data from each state’s SOS.Here’s some interesting data on Texas. Texas is a good state to analyze as it is in the Republican column but used to be a big Dem state. Because it’s big, the data is loose and easy. It also has a nice balance between urban and rural.2008 Presidential Election PRIMARY (first Obama election)Dems 2,874,986 voters, 22.54% turnout v registered votersReps 1,362,322 voters, 10.68%2016 Presidential Election PRIMARYDems 1,435, 895 voters, 10%Reps 2,836,488 voters, 19.92%As you can see, the Dems fell by 50% while the Reps more than doubled. This is the enthusiasm gap of which many are speaking but you have to dig into the numbers and look back to 2008 to see it.To put that in perspective, in 2016, there are 19,307,355 ELIGIBLE voters and 14,238,436 REGISTERED voters. There are more than 5,000,000 eligible but not registered voters. This is huge.In 2008, only 59.50% of the registered voters voted in the actual Presidential election.In 2016, it is likely there will be more voters (remember the population has increased in 8 years) but what is equally likely is that the Republicans will have even higher turnout as they did in the primary.This is just a petri dish as Texas is going to vote for Trump but it is a great place to see the enthusiasm gap.Remember, Dems down by half. Reps up by double. Those are huge numbers.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

    1. William Mougayar

      Interesting data, and it seems that voter turnout will be a determining factor.

    2. Girish Mehta

      What do you think about what the polls are saying presently about a week after the debate ?

      1. JLM

        .The polls are currently unreliable at this instant just because the environment is way too frothy.Having said that, I think HRC got a bump from her debate with DJT.I think DJT will get a bump from Pence’s performance last night.Me? I want a Pence-Trump ticket. Pence shored up the far right, the evangelicals, the conservative base, and played well with independents. Pence gave anyone who was not sure a lot of reasons to vote for Trump. Better than Trump himself.I also think Kaine did himself a bad lick. He was like Eddie Haskell.I think that Trump will actually garner votes +5 when compared to the best polls because I think folks don’t like to admit they’re going to vote for him. That’s all of my friends, believe me.Take someone in Coal Country — traditionally solid Dem union voters — they’re going to vote for their jobs. Period.There is going to be way more “voting against” than “voting for” in November.Last point — I cannot tell you how many folks I talked to in the last 12 hours who said: “If Mike Pence is the caliber of guy Trump can attract, then he’s really going to get stuff done.”That is a pretty damn earthy, pragmatic thing to observe and it resonates.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

        1. Girish Mehta

          Does any VP debate deliver any meaningful bump to the outcome ?Even that Lloyd Bensten to Dan Qualye remark in the 1988 VP debate which has gone down in legend, and become part of the lexicon…still the Bush-Quayle ticket defeated Dukakis-Bensten. If I remember correctly, Bensten was not even able to deliver Texas.

          1. JLM

            .Two things — all the rules are out the window this year. So, yes, I think everything matters. Still in the same proportion but everything matters.Second, Lloyd Bentsen was way more conservative than either Bush or Quayle (or Dukakis) which is illuminating as to why a Texas Dem is so different than a national Dem.That accounts for why so many Texas Dems became Republicans (Sen Gramm, Gov Perry).The top of the ticket, Dukakis, was a disaster.A lot of people thought that Bentsen was just plain mean.I played golf one time with Quayle (long after he was out of the White House) with Darrell Royal and Tom Landry — now, that was a foursome. It was a Rick Perry fundraiser and Rick set me up with them. My daughter and his were friends.Dan Quayle is one Hell of a golfer and one of the most natively intelligent men I have ever met. He handicapped the entire country’s Congressional races — District by District — on the fly. Encyclopedic knowledge.He was also a physical specimen and looked like he could have played for either the Longhorns or the Cowboys the next day.The savaging the press gave him is an act of barbaric cruelty and ruined the political career of a damn good man.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  44. ShanaC

    I am surprised that usv actually made an endorsement, not who for.I frankly find it a bit weird – outside of media companies, I’ve never heard of any companies endorsingWill this be a new norm

  45. pwrserge

    Yeah… Please tell me more about hot Hitlary is not a corporate candidate.

  46. vic

    thank god usv figured this out. i really didn’t know who to vote for.ha!

  47. d

    White house lawn yesterday Hillary endorsement today. You’ve got me interested.

  48. Scott Avid

    Seriously? With Hillary’s criminal record and her obvious neurological diseases?

  49. David Mowers

    “We cannot unilaterally set the rules for the other seven billion people on the planet.”That is EXACTLY what tech companies are doing by creating the tools necessary to control and manipulate behavior at all levels of society to enrich themselves at the expense of the working poor. This is the whole point of selective genetic engineering, life-extension sciences, robotic labor, high frequency trading algorithms, bureaucratic software programs, red light cameras, government spying programs, -ALL OF IT is undemocratic, oligarchic systemic abuse of the lower classes for profit.These people and their “tech,” are the problems for society not the answers.

  50. JLM

    .Dream on.The guy added more to the National Debt than all Presidents before him combined.GW Bush did the same thing.A pox on both of their houses.Fight fair, breadman.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  51. Girish Mehta

    Breadman ! Upvoted for that. Nice Funny.

  52. JLM

    .Charlie is one of the best guys on this blog and I honor his commitment to doing good. He is a genuine and sincere do-gooder and a mensch.He is also The Breadman, The Organic Breadman. The Breadman of Lancaster?A guy sent me a deck, recently, for organic condoms.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  53. Donna Brewington White

    Yeah, Charlie puts his money where his mouth is.And his bread too.

  54. Girish Mehta

    The Sage Breadman of Lancaster…

  55. Kirsten Lambertsen

    Right on.

  56. Kirsten Lambertsen

    Oh my wow! Let me know if there’s any way to lend support. I know you’re not doing it for PR, but maybe we can get folks to help pay for it.

  57. Girish Mehta

    I am slow…not understanding the North Dakota reference..?

  58. Kirsten Lambertsen

    Attack dogs used against peaceful protesters. Gets no media because press ignores Native Americans.

  59. Girish Mehta

    Thanks.Hadn’t seen that…