291–300 of 481 posts
The Intercept reviewed the full termination email sent from Slaughter to Lynn that was cited and quoted in the Times report and found that they were reported and characterized with complete accuracy. The full text does, however, show that Slaughter threatened to make Lynn’s firing more difficult for him and his team should it generate any negative publicity for New America.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Castigating someone else's opinions as the destruction of open discussion is the height of irony.
Well... they were speaking to a behavior. It's a bit murky whether `dislike for changing the subject` is accurately or usefully reduced to `castigating someone else's opinion`.
It's like someone saying "the senate always votes to raise its own pay whenever republicans are in power!" and someone else replying "they only raised it to match inflation, the real problem is that senators are charged with determining their own salary", then, someone responds with "stop changing the subject". If anyone is "changing the subject" it's the person that instigated a contentious meta-discussion about what is and what's not on topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course they do. Their credibility is on the line, and much has already been lost; they will forever be that group who is beholden to Google.
Maybe wait until after the announcement to judge its veracity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In your estimation, are you placing the very active and loud anti-corporate voices in this country outside of American politics, or merely denying that they are genuine?
> the very active and loud anti-corporate voices Could you clarify which voices you mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> bribe anyone in their way Do you have a source for this claim?
Eric Schmidt set up a data company for the sole purpose of getting Hillary elected. Google also had 427 white house visits during the Obama Admin. Not sure what your definition of bribe is but they are as tight with DC as any wall street bank https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close...
Hmm, so leftist ideas are OK to be supported, except when they are applied to the said corporation. Fun. :)
If you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; otherwise please don't comment until you do.
This isn't a problem with Google, it's a problem with the establishment left in the United States. There's no genuine, credible anti-corporate voice in American politics. The reasons why are many, but of course they typically distill down to the incredible power of money to influence people, of which this is an example. The side-effects of there being no credible labor party in our political system manifests, in part…
There's one anti-corporate idea that I've always thought was interesting but AFAIK isn't discussed by anyone: small-corporation libertarianism. In general libertarians are too concerned with government but almost all of them (plus neoliberals and many financially conservative folks) can agree that competition is at least one of their most important economic tenants. Competition is balanced against economies of scale…
>all of them (plus neoliberals and many financially conservative folks) can agree that competition is at least one of their most important economic tenants
Note that this isn't true. Lots of free-market mindset people (libertarians and otherwise) believe that if a monopoly can provide a lower price then that's all that matters. That's part of the reason we're in this mess in the first place.
The key point of the article is this: “Google is very aggressive in throwing its money around Washington and Brussels, and then pulling the strings,” Mr. Lynn said. “People are so afraid of Google now.” Honestly, the only thing shocking about any of this is that people thought Google was "special". The reality is, when its revenues are threatened, it's going to reach like any other corporation, which it should. Googl…
This isn't a problem with Google, it's a problem with the establishment left in the United States. There's no genuine, credible anti-corporate voice in American politics. The reasons why are many, but of course they typically distill down to the incredible power of money to influence people, of which this is an example. The side-effects of there being no credible labor party in our political system manifests, in part…
Why is this not equally a problem with the establishment right in the United States? They aren't being a genuine, credible anti-corporate voice either. Or do they get off the hook because we just assume that there's no chance they would ever be that?
Yes and no. Trump was elected on a platform of tearing up TPP, TTIP, NAFTA etc, all of which are loved by large corporations looking to offshore work and evade taxes. There are a lot of people who voted for that anti-corporate message, and against Hillary who was obviously in Wall Street's pocket.
I mean, the guy has been in the public eye since what, the 70's? He has been photographed socialising with people of all races, he employs plenty of women in senior roles in his companies, he married an immigrant - yet the big, corporate media conglomerates are determined to paint him as a racist sexist etc etc - they all loved him while he stayed out of politics - doesn't that seem a little odd?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Larry and Sergey own super-voting shares and can outvote all other shareholders combined.
Sure, but is Google's motto still "don't be evil"? They may be able to potentially wield a big stick, but what's its use when they'll never use it and push back? they've been strong armed by Wall St to the point where they've kowtow enough to drastically change Google in not so great ways. In their defense, very few people can do better