Ex-GM CEO: I've always voted Republican until now

[TrueBlue]

Ex-GM CEO: I've always voted Republican until now
By Nikita Vladimirov

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/291836-ex-gm-ceo-ive-always-voted-republican-until-now

"Former chairman and CEO of General Motors Daniel Akerson says that worries about Donald Trump (http://thehill.com/people/donald-trump) will dictate how he votes this November."

"The compelling rationale behind this decision: leadership. A good leader must demonstrate such qualities as competence, integrity, empathy, character and temperament. Hillary Clinton (http://thehill.com/people/hillary-clinton) has these essential qualities. Donald Trump does not," he added."

"His threat to impose prohibitive tariffs on trade would repeat mistakes that contributed to the Great Depression. His words and actions have rattled our European and Asian allies at a time when Russia and China are resurgent. He has demonstrated neither the capacity nor the inclination to learn from experts in global economics," he wrote."



=====================================
Thanks to The Hill for this report.

Imho, Trump sure has a way of alienating and driving away important and influential Republican supporters and those who may have been predisposed to vote for him at one time, doesn't he! He seems to be excelling at that lately.

Being one who obviously knows well about the business world we need to heed Mr. Akerson's words. By comparison to Donald Trump he gives great KUDOS to Hillary Clinton as a leader in her ability to lead this country and take it forward!

The forum rules will be strictly observed by participants in this thread or non-conforming members will be thread banned.

If You Don't Like What Is Being Discussed In the OP You Can Always Do the Courteous Thing and Just Leave the Thread.

[Newpublius]

Ex-GM CEO: I've always voted Republican until now
By Nikita Vladimirov

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/291836-ex-gm-ceo-ive-always-voted-republican-until-now





=====================================
Thanks to The Hill for this report.

Imho, Trump sure has a way of alienating and driving away important and influential Republican supporters and those who may have been predisposed to vote for him at one time, doesn't he! He seems to be excelling at that lately.

Being one who obviously knows well about the business world we need to heed Mr. Akerson's words. By comparison to Donald Trump he gives great KUDOS to Hillary Clinton as a leader in her ability to lead this country and take it forward!

The forum rules will be strictly observed by participants in this thread or non-conforming members will be thread banned.

If You Don't Like What Is Being Discussed In the OP You Can Always Do the Courteous Thing and Just Leave the Thread.

GM received a bailout from the government.

[Subdermal]

You mean the company that was bailed out by Democrats?

Ask Ford.

They still have credibility.

The name of the author does seem appropriate.

[TrueBlue]

GM received a bailout from the government.
Hillary Clinton was not in charge of that action you have to remember.

[TrueBlue]

You mean the company that was bailed out by Democrats?

Ask Ford.

They still have credibility.

The name of the author does seem appropriate.
What Mr. Akerson is saying has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton and the bailout. He is speaking as to her integrity and exceptional leadership ability as compared to Trump.

[Newpublius]

What Mr. Akerson is saying has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton and the bailout. He is speaking as to her integrity and exceptional leadership ability as compared to Trump.


The point though is that it strains credulity that he converted to 'Democrat' after receiving copious amounts of corporate welfare from the Democrats.

[Green Arrow]

Of course he's voting for Hillary, Hillary voted for the auto industry bailout that his company benefited from and is a loyal servant of Wall Street.

[zelmo1234]

That is nice but he is lying. He was a big supporter and donor to Jennifer Granholm, AKA the Mole.

A Governor so bad that when her term was up, she had to leave her own state to find a job. So I think he is likely a Hillary plant.

[debbietoo]

The GM bailouts were part of the TARP bailouts signed into legislation by President George W. Bush, not President Obama. Therefore, that part of the deficit was actually acquired under Bush's watch. Therefore, the blame cannot pass to Democrats for the bank bailouts. See this link.

Was TARP Passed Under Bush or Obama?


Source:

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/was-tarp-passed-under-bush-or-obama/


In numerous polls, the public has voiced their displeasure at the much maligned bank bailout, but most don’t know which president signed the controversial act into law. Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama. Another 19% admit they do not know which president signed the bank bailout into law. Notably, there is no partisan divide on the question. Just 36% of Republicans, 35% of independents and 34% of Democrats know that the government bailout of banks and financial institutions was signed into law by former President Bush. And Democrats (46%) are just as likely as Republicans (50%) to say TARP was passed under Obama. Read More (http://www.pewresearch.org/pubs/1668/political-news-iq-update-7-2010-twitter-tarp-roberts)

[Safety]

The GM bailouts were part of the TARP bailouts signed into legislation by President George W. Bush, not President Obama. Therefore, that part of the deficit was actually acquired under Bush's watch. Therefore, the blame cannot pass to Democrats for the bank bailouts. See this link.

Was TARP Passed Under Bush or Obama?


Source:

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/was-tarp-passed-under-bush-or-obama/


In numerous polls, the public has voiced their displeasure at the much maligned bank bailout, but most don’t know which president signed the controversial act into law. Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama. Another 19% admit they do not know which president signed the bank bailout into law. Notably, there is no partisan divide on the question. Just 36% of Republicans, 35% of independents and 34% of Democrats know that the government bailout of banks and financial institutions was signed into law by former President Bush. And Democrats (46%) are just as likely as Republicans (50%) to say TARP was passed under Obama. Read More (http://www.pewresearch.org/pubs/1668/political-news-iq-update-7-2010-twitter-tarp-roberts)










It's too late in the evening for facts to be presented.

[Cletus]

It's too late in the evening for facts to be presented.

While a few facts may be good, more facts are better.

Let's look at what Debbie (and you) left out.

Dec. 19, 2008. The Bush Administration announces plans to bail out Detroit's auto industry, notably General Motors and Chrysler Group.

Dec. 31, 2008. GM receives $13.4 billion in short-term financing through the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
April 22, 2009. The Obama Administration provided $2 billion working capital loan to GM.
May 20, 2009. Another $4 billion is added to the loan.
June 1, 2009. GM files for bankruptcy reorganization. In bankruptcy, it cuts costs and sheds such well-known brands as Saturn, Hummer and Saab.
June 3, 2009, in conjunction with the bankruptcy filing, the Obama Administration provides a $30.1 billion debtor-in-possession loan.
June 8, 2009. GM kicked off the list of 30 companies comprising the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

That kind of changes things a bit, doesn't it? Bush approved a 13.4 billion Dollar bailout loan for GM. Obama approved 36.1 billion Dollars in bailout loans for GM.

So, why do you think he is sucking up to Clinton, now?

[Bethere]

So, why do you think he is sucking up to Clinton, now?

Because Trump is dangerous!

[Green Arrow]

The GM bailouts were part of the TARP bailouts signed into legislation by President George W. Bush, not President Obama. Therefore, that part of the deficit was actually acquired under Bush's watch. Therefore, the blame cannot pass to Democrats for the bank bailouts. See this link.

Was TARP Passed Under Bush or Obama?


Source:

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/was-tarp-passed-under-bush-or-obama/


In numerous polls, the public has voiced their displeasure at the much maligned bank bailout, but most don’t know which president signed the controversial act into law. Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama. Another 19% admit they do not know which president signed the bank bailout into law. Notably, there is no partisan divide on the question. Just 36% of Republicans, 35% of independents and 34% of Democrats know that the government bailout of banks and financial institutions was signed into law by former President Bush. And Democrats (46%) are just as likely as Republicans (50%) to say TARP was passed under Obama. Read More (http://www.pewresearch.org/pubs/1668/political-news-iq-update-7-2010-twitter-tarp-roberts)










39 of the 74 Senators that voted for the bailouts were Democrats - including Senators Obama and Clinton. The remaining 35 of the 74 were Republicans.

In the House, the final vote was 223-186, with 219 of those 223 votes for coming from Democrats.

So no, it's not impossible to blame Democrats for the passage of the bailouts because they voted rather overwhelmingly as a party in favor of the bailouts. If they had voted no as strongly as they voted yes, Bush would never have been able to sign it.

[Cletus]

Because Trump is dangerous!

Uninformed voters like yourself and Debbie are far more dangerous.

[zelmo1234]

The GM bailouts were part of the TARP bailouts signed into legislation by President George W. Bush, not President Obama. Therefore, that part of the deficit was actually acquired under Bush's watch. Therefore, the blame cannot pass to Democrats for the bank bailouts. See this link.

Was TARP Passed Under Bush or Obama?


Source:

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/was-tarp-passed-under-bush-or-obama/


In numerous polls, the public has voiced their displeasure at the much maligned bank bailout, but most don’t know which president signed the controversial act into law. Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama. Another 19% admit they do not know which president signed the bank bailout into law. Notably, there is no partisan divide on the question. Just 36% of Republicans, 35% of independents and 34% of Democrats know that the government bailout of banks and financial institutions was signed into law by former President Bush. And Democrats (46%) are just as likely as Republicans (50%) to say TARP was passed under Obama. Read More (http://www.pewresearch.org/pubs/1668/political-news-iq-update-7-2010-twitter-tarp-roberts)








I thought this might come up again

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1011/bailout.html

If you remember, Bush Signed TARP one, and then after the election worked with Obama on rebranding it.

Also Obama did the Bailout of the GM and Chrysler Unions, and TARP 2

So NO this was not part of the Bush Deficit, Unless you all want to give 2001 to Clinton, as his budget was signed too

And if 2001 belongs to Clinton, then he did not leave Bush with a Surplus.

[Bethere]

Uninformed voters like yourself and Debbie are far more dangerous.

You have bethere fever.

[Peter1469]

This election is not right v. left. It is nationalism v. the march towards globalism. The elites will largely go for globalism.

We will see how many of the masses say no. Like Brexit.

[zelmo1234]

Because Trump is dangerous!

More dangerous than someone that was so careless with national security, that our enemies, likely have enough evidence to bribe her?

That to me is more dangerous.

Also the last President that Was so dangerous that he was going to start WWIII was Reagan, and he turned out to be really good.

[zelmo1234]

You have bethere fever.

So what is it specifically that so scares you about Trump?

[Mac-7]

Ex-GM CEO: I've always voted Republican until now
By Nikita Vladimirov

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/291836-ex-gm-ceo-ive-always-voted-republican-until-now





=====================================
Thanks to The Hill for this report.

Imho, Trump sure has a way of alienating and driving away important and influential Republican supporters and those who may have been predisposed to vote for him at one time, doesn't he! He seems to be excelling at that lately.

Being one who obviously knows well about the business world we need to heed Mr. Akerson's words. By comparison to Donald Trump he gives great KUDOS to Hillary Clinton as a leader in her ability to lead this country and take it forward!

The forum rules will be strictly observed by participants in this thread or non-conforming members will be thread banned.

If You Don't Like What Is Being Discussed In the OP You Can Always Do the Courteous Thing and Just Leave the Thread.

Ackerson is either a fool or a liar.

or he owns lots of GM stock which is heavily onvested in china.

comparing US trade in the 1930's with our trade situation today is not relevant

When the Great Deptession began we were a net exporter of goods.

so erecting trade barriors did hurt our economy.

But today thanks to free trade we are a net importer.

[maineman]

The name of the author does seem appropriate.

bigot. I bet you wouldn't say a thing if the name the author were Pedro Sanchez, would you señor?

[Green Arrow]

bigot. I bet you wouldn't say a thing if the name the author were Pedro Sanchez, would you señor?

Nikita Vladimirov is a Russian name. Russian as in Soviet. Soviet as in communist...

[MisterVeritis]

Because Trump is dangerous!
Irony.

The dangerous one sold access for cash.

[maineman]

certainly. I think it is reasonable to assume that any American with a Russian sounding name must be a communist. Just like it's safe to assume that anyone with a hispanic sounding name must wear a sombrero, a serape, and go to sleep up against a cactus with a bottle of tequila clutched between their hands.

[Green Arrow]

certainly. I think it is reasonable to assume that any American with a Russian sounding name must be a communist. Just like it's safe to assume that anyone with a hispanic sounding name must wear a sombrero, a serape, and go to sleep up against a cactus with a bottle of tequila clutched between their hands.

The assumption isn't that Nikita Vladimirov is a communist. Democrats are the communists to the poster who made the comment. So articles about "communist" Democrats written by a Russian (former communists)...

[Subdermal]

bigot. I bet you wouldn't say a thing if the name the author were Pedro Sanchez, would you señor?

I wouldn't? Since the Hispanic vote is supposed to be nearly unanimously anti-Trump?

:biglaugh:

I'm a bigot, while you've been wailing about Russians and Trump's connection to Putin constantly here?

While you've been attaching 'señor' to every post directed at me? And I'm the bigot?

Kindly fock off.

[maineman]

I wouldn't? Since the Hispanic vote is supposed to be nearly unanimously anti-Trump?

:biglaugh:

I'm a bigot, while you've been wailing about Russians and Trump's connection to Putin constantly here?

While you've been attaching 'señor' to every post directed at me? And I'm the bigot?

Kindly fock off.

YOU are no different than Trump going after an American born judge with a hispanic name, señor.

And I can't recall posting anything about Trump's Russian connection, let alone doing so "constantly" señor. I think you are confused.

[Subdermal]

YOU are no different than Trump going after an American born judge with a hispanic name, señor.

And I can't recall posting anything about Trump's Russian connection, let alone doing so "constantly" señor. I think you are confused.

Do you need to be told twice, like a dense dog?

[maineman]

Do you need to be told twice, like a dense dog?

you're confused about my constantly posting about Trump and his Russian connection, and I am the one who is dense, Pedro? Who the fuck do you think you are????

[Subdermal]

you're confused about my constantly posting about Trump and his Russian connection, and I am the one who is dense, Pedro? Who the $#@! do you think you are????

Apparently, I'm the owner of a dense bigoted dog.

[Captain Obvious]

lol now progressives are wall street fans.

Idiots

[Newpublius]

YOU are no different than Trump going after an American born judge with a hispanic name, señor.

And I can't recall posting anything about Trump's Russian connection, let alone doing so "constantly" señor. I think you are confused.

He suggested that his ethnicity, not his nationality, might impact his judgment. The judge's brother made some choice anti-Trump statements as well. Indeed I am not quite sure why it wouldn't be far fetched for the anti-immigratuon candidate to be perceived negatively by the Hispanic community.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would often make, often more than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." -- Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor

Sotomayor flat out said her ethnicity inpacts her judging.

[maineman]

so a guy with a Russian sounding name should be assumed to be anti-Trump for WHAT reason, exactly?

[Tahuyaman]

.
A good leader must demonstrate such qualities as competence, integrity, empathy, character and temperament. Hillary Clinton (http://thehill.com/people/hillary-clinton) has these essential qualities. Donald Trump does not," he added."
I have serious doubts that a person who has the intelligence and drive to become the CEO of one of the corporate giants would say Mrs. Clinton has either integrity or character.

[Mac-7]

He suggested that his ethnicity, not his nationality, might impact his judgment. The judge's brother made some choice anti-Trump statements as well. Indeed I am not quite sure why it wouldn't be far fetched for the anti-immigratuon candidate to be perceived negatively by the Hispanic community.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would often make, often more than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." -- Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor

Sotomayor flat out said her ethnicity inpacts her judging.

He gotcha there Maineman.

[maineman]

He gotcha there Maineman.

so...you're saying that it is not far fetched to assume that a man with a Russian sounding name would be anti-Trump

[Mac-7]

so...you're saying that it is not far fetched to assume that a man with a Russian sounding name would be anti-Trumpv

dont try to wiggle out by bringing up the russian

you were whinning about trumps remarks concerning the hispanic judge and walked into a swinging door from Newpublius.

[maineman]

v

dont try to wiggle out by bringing up the russian

you were whinning about trumps remarks concerning the hispanic judge and walked into a swinging door from Newpublius.

you need to follow the conversation a bit more closely. Go back and reread what has been said and then you can apologize to me....not that I'll wait.

[Newpublius]

so...you're saying that it is not far fetched to assume that a man with a Russian sounding name would be anti-Trump

Curiel belongs to La Raza or has connections to it and really the question isn't Curiel's (in)ability to be impartial. Curiel's brother's statements are partially problematic and could be viewed as a possible proxy for his brother.

The standard is really whether there might appear to be an impropriety, even if there isn't one.

[Mac-7]

you need to follow the conversation a bit more closely. Go back and reread what has been said and then you can apologize to me....not that I'll wait.

Post 32 has nothing to do with a russian

[Tahuyaman]

Lol......

[maineman]

Post 32 has nothing to do with a russian

then you cannot fucking read. Post 32 quotes a post by me that does indeed discuss a russian. Holy fuck. You are dumber than I could possibly have imagined.

[maineman]

Curiel belongs to La Raza or has connections to it and really the question isn't Curiel's (in)ability to be impartial. Curiel's brother's statements are partially problematic and could be viewed as a possible proxy for his brother.

The standard is really whether there might appear to be an impropriety, even if there isn't one.

so a sitting justice is judged by the statements of his brother? Interesting. I guess Edwin Booth should be judged as an actor based upon the actions of HIS brother? William Bulger, the president of the University of Massachusetts should be similarly condemned because of the actions of his brother Whitey?

[Newpublius]

so a sitting justice is judged by the statements of his brother? Interesting. I guess Edwin Booth should be judged as an actor based upon the actions of HIS brother? William Bulger, the president of the University of Massachusetts should be similarly condemned because of the actions of his brother Whitey?

For purposes of establishing the APPEARANCE of impropriety, sure. For purposes of establishing agency, separate indivoduality is our rule and its a great rule, but the brother spoke out about Trump. Perfectly lawful for him to do so. That's not the question.....the quest is whether it MIGHT appear to impact inpartially and it clearly MIGHT.

[maineman]

For purposes of establishing the APPEARANCE of impropriety, sure. For purposes of establishing agency, separate indivoduality is our rule and its a great rule, but the brother spoke out about Trump. Perfectly lawful for him to do so. That's not the question.....the quest is whether it MIGHT appear to impact inpartially and it clearly MIGHT.

and William Bulger MIGHT have been a less than competent University president because his brother was a gangster? Edwin Booth was less than a prince of players because his brother killed Lincoln?

[Newpublius]

and William Bulger MIGHT have been a less than competent University president because his brother was a gangster? Edwin Booth was less than a prince of players because his brother killed Lincoln?

We're not discussing complicity here, we're discussing recusal. A brother's actions aren't automatically attributable to any sibling of course. They could even be enemies, but that's not the question, the question is whether Trump, and the public I might add, could view the brother's statements as POSSIBLY attributable to the brother.

[IMG]https://api-a.eyefi.com/3/files/2096275878/thumbnails/19869a2bb35e0f23512d45a024f97e9ec044b2b9/s2048/image.jpg?v=4

[Newpublius]

Statue of Edwin Booth in Grammercy Park which is actually closed off to the public accessible to the people who own the buildings around it. He's known as the best actor of the era, we'd never know since there are no recordings. He was a Union man who ironically saved Lincoln's son from a horrible death on a train platform in NJ.

I didn't unlawfully enter the park to take this picture, I just used my zoom. Of course the iconic Chrysler building is in the background. Just north of Grammercy Park is the beginning of Lexington Avenue

[maineman]

Nice photo. If the judge's brother were a total nut job who had a blog that railed against anyone and everyone in power, wuold the judge be, in your opinion, compelled to resign because anyone might attribute his brother's rants to him?

[Newpublius]

Nice photo. If the judge's brother were a total nut job who had a blog that railed against anyone and everyone in power, wuold the judge be, in your opinion, compelled to resign because anyone might attribute his brother's rants to him?

The brother's comments were coincident to and directly pertained to Trump's comments about his brother.

[Newpublius]

As an aside, Curiel is obviously aware of the controversy and will actually likely be so cognizant that his actions might be perceived as exhibiting a bias against Trump that he might go well to the other side of the line and wind up, inadvertently being slightly pro-Trump.....

[Mac-7]

then you cannot $#@!ing read. Post 32 quotes a post by me that does indeed discuss a russian. Holy $#@!. You are dumber than I could possibly have imagined.

You are the stupid one.

here are your words that post #32 responds to:


YOU are no YOU are no different than Trump going after an American born than Trump going after an American born judge with a hispanic surname, senor

[maineman]

You are the stupid one.

here are your words that post #32 responds to:


and what had subdermal said that was no different?