Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 153 posts

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#81

Post by AnthonyMouse »

pavlov wrote: post #57
leesalminen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The typical hire former government workers to lobby current government might also be in danger if the President goes through with his anti-lobbyist rule changes. This is one thing that I'm really looking forward to.

Trump's proposal is a five-year ban on becoming a registered lobbyist after leaving a government job. This sounds good on paper -- but the more likely reality is that it will simply lead to lobbying becoming more covert, as former government employees working on behalf of corporations won't register as lobbyists. It's also hard to believe that the Trump administration would do much to rein in backroom deals, consider…

> This sounds good on paper -- but the more likely reality is that it will simply lead to lobbying becoming more covert, as former government employees working on behalf of corporations won't register as lobbyists.

And then they'll be breaking the law.

Pushing the practice underground will make it less effective and less common. The appearance of propriety goes a long way toward convincing people that there isn't enough profit in being improper.

> It's also hard to believe that the Trump administration would do much to rein in backroom deals, considering the President himself hasn't released his tax returns nor taken any credible steps to solve the massive conflicts of interest posed by his holdings.

I don't understand why people continue to revisit things like this when there are so many legitimate problems with Trump.

His tax returns are going to tell you how much money he made and how much tax he paid. How does that help you? It's bike shedding.

And the conflicts of interest are inherently unavoidable. Even if he put every cent of his money in a blind trust (which is obviously expensive if the assets are illiquid real estate holdings), what about his family's assets? What about his business partners? The only reason anyone cares about this is the appearance of impropriety. If that matters in this case then why not in the other?

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#82

Post by Angostura »

twblalock wrote: post #54
alphonsegaston wrote: post #8

I'm not optimistic, but I hope that the Trump era finally puts an end to the illusions people had about tech giants as a vehicle for social progress. We're stepping into an era of extreme inequality, authoritarianism, and intolerance, all borne on the back of their rise. They may not be the origin of these trends, but they certainly rode them to tremendous wealth without anything besides the most superficial concerns…

> I'm not optimistic, but I hope that the Trump era finally puts an end to the illusions people had about tech giants as a vehicle for social progress. I hope so too. Even if corporations really were sincerely pursuing social progress, that would be bad. In a democratic society, social progress should not be determined by a small group of unaccountable organizations. Say what you will about governments pursuing socia…

> Even if corporations really were sincerely pursuing social progress, that would be bad. In a democratic society, social progress should not be determined by a small group of unaccountable organizations.

I disagree. Progress shouldn't be dependent on a small group of unaccountable organisations - but if such want to get out there and run their businesses in an, progressive manner that benefits society as a whole, I'm going to cheer them on.

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#83

Post by anigbrowl »

protomyth wrote: post #33
TorKlingberg wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if Google employees will revolt, if the company does as you suggest and order them to not say or do anything that might anger Trump.

does as you suggest and order them to not say or do anything that might anger Trump. Could you clue me in on where I said that? If you mean my doodle comment, then that's really not about Trump per se, its more about lack of attention to things his base cares about and might lead to problem.

I would advice Google to have a small talk with their doodle team to not rock the boat this year certainly comes off as 'keep your head down' even though you may not have intended it that way. I mean, what sort of things do you think they should avoid that might rock the boat?

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#84

Post by tomcam »

protomyth wrote: post #3

This is probably going to be a hard problem for a lot of companies. Spending quite a lot of money on Democrats and little on Republicans looked like a good strategy given the polling, but now they have to deal with a office holder that is not the least concerned with building bridges and has a bit of vengeful streak. Not to mention all the contacts they have built up in the permanent staff might not be there as long…

Please tell me how President Obama attempted to build bridges with Republicans.

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#85

Post by tomcam »

protomyth wrote: post #60
mudil wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"now they have to deal with a office holder that is not the least concerned with building bridges and has a bit of vengeful streak" Where is evidence for that? As a matter of fact, during the post election period Trump extended olive branches to his opponents and critics, such as Romney, Cruz, Bushes, etc.

Olive branch to Romney? He dragged him through the press like a trained dog. He said some nice things about the Clintons, but I haven't seen a lot of bridge building or olive branches. I'm more than willing to give him a chance, and I really want him to do well, but I don't think he suffers opponents gladly.

What about the day-long meeting he had with Romney?

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#86

Post by tomcam »

wmeredith wrote: post #4

Gross. I thought a Google in bed with the Obama administration was unsettling. One in bed with the GOP and Trump is terrifying. Google has the keys to the muslim registry, and every other kind of registry you could imagine in every country it operates.

Citation for the Muslim registry?

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#87

Post by mac01021 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #81
pavlov wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump's proposal is a five-year ban on becoming a registered lobbyist after leaving a government job. This sounds good on paper -- but the more likely reality is that it will simply lead to lobbying becoming more covert, as former government employees working on behalf of corporations won't register as lobbyists. It's also hard to believe that the Trump administration would do much to rein in backroom deals, consider…

> This sounds good on paper -- but the more likely reality is that it will simply lead to lobbying becoming more covert, as former government employees working on behalf of corporations won't register as lobbyists. And then they'll be breaking the law. Pushing the practice underground will make it less effective and less common. The appearance of propriety goes a long way toward convincing people that there isn't eno…

> And then they'll be breaking the law.

Will they? You don't have to be a registered lobbyist to have access to your congressman. That would be thoroughly undemocratic.

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#88

Post by mac01021 »

mtgx wrote: post #61
kyrra wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google as a company gives equally between the 2 parties[0] (via it's PAC(s)). Google employees that donated to candidates or various government entities definitely leans towards the democrat side[1]. So the company knows to hedge its bets and give equally both ways. (Most large companies do this, like Comcast[2]). [0] https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pac2pac.php?cycle=2016&cmte... [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs…

The problem is this shouldn't even be a thing. It shouldn't be "Google" that gives money to politicians . It should be individuals. And the sums should be capped at $200 (local/Congress elections) to $500 (presidential elections). Even "lobbying" shouldn't exist. There should only be public hearings. I don't want some other party to whisper secret stuff to my politician. I want it all on the record.

It doesn't seem practical to forbid every politician to have conversations that are not televised.

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#89

Post by ocdtrekkie »

mtgx wrote: post #61
kyrra wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google as a company gives equally between the 2 parties[0] (via it's PAC(s)). Google employees that donated to candidates or various government entities definitely leans towards the democrat side[1]. So the company knows to hedge its bets and give equally both ways. (Most large companies do this, like Comcast[2]). [0] https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pac2pac.php?cycle=2016&cmte... [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs…

The problem is this shouldn't even be a thing. It shouldn't be "Google" that gives money to politicians . It should be individuals. And the sums should be capped at $200 (local/Congress elections) to $500 (presidential elections). Even "lobbying" shouldn't exist. There should only be public hearings. I don't want some other party to whisper secret stuff to my politician. I want it all on the record.

Yeah, I can't count how many Googlers have argued with me based on the claim that OpenSecrets is highlighting donations of individual employees, and that the company itself isn't buying these politicians... but that's what Google NetPAC is for. Google gives to their own PAC, which gives to their paid-for Congresscritters. Just a (thin) layer of obfuscation.

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#90

Post by ocdtrekkie »

TorKlingberg wrote: post #29
protomyth wrote: post #3

This is probably going to be a hard problem for a lot of companies. Spending quite a lot of money on Democrats and little on Republicans looked like a good strategy given the polling, but now they have to deal with a office holder that is not the least concerned with building bridges and has a bit of vengeful streak. Not to mention all the contacts they have built up in the permanent staff might not be there as long…

I wonder if Google employees will revolt, if the company does as you suggest and order them to not say or do anything that might anger Trump.

If Google employees were going to revolt, they'd have done so already. Many have left on various grounds, but those that are left either have heavily bought into what Google's marketing team is selling about the mission, or simply don't care that they work for a company that has such a corrupt influence in government.

A Googler I follow recently posted an angry social post about the recent Congressional proposal to gimp the Office of Congressional Ethics, and how that was "not normal" and such. I pointed out that Bob Goodlatte, the congressman who introduced it, was bought and paid for by Google, and has acted as a lobbyist for Google while supposedly serving the public. He largely dismissed the point, but I suggested that rather than blame Trump, who hadn't even been inaugurated yet, that he should maybe ask his employer to stop bankrolling this guy.

He largely just dismissed my point and then closed the comments. I have no doubt Google's executives have drastically different social and moral views than their rank and file engineers, but they don't seem too inclined to do anything about it.

Post reply on HN