6 ms·

What Altman doesn't need to worry about is the blowback and boycotting that occurs when actual CEOs speak out. They know what he refuses to admit: that a non-v

What Altman doesn't need to worry about is the blowback and boycotting that occurs when actual CEOs speak out. They know what he refuses to admit: that a non-vocal majority of this country strongly supports the President and will NOT support anyone who publicly smites him. Attacking the President as a normal consumer goods CEO is a losing proposition.

hedora 10y ago
That is what North Carolina thought. Major companies pressuring the government helps shift people's opinions on what is acceptable in modern society. Even if you don't care about doing the right thing, losing some business from a (shrinking) minority of Americans is probably worth the positive publicity overseas, economic stability, retaining visa-holding employees, etc.
mattieuga 10y ago
/s/majority/almost half
- MicroBerto 10y ago
  s/almost half/over half after fraudulent votes removed
  - grzm 10y ago
    Unless you have solid evidence for this, please don't sow seeds of doubt regarding the integrity of the voting process. Edit: s/election/voting/ The election includes the whole primary system and the electoral college. Here I specifically mean the vote.
    - MicroBerto 10y ago
      Detroit is just one city (http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-votes-detroits-precincts/95363314/ http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/re...). How many others are there? That's plenty for the seeds of doubt, especially given how easy it is to vote in several states.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Thanks for the link. The initial results there are definitely problematic. If I'm reading the article correctly, they're expected to run a full audit to see if the results are confirmed, correct? I'm particularly interested in what types of machines and other voting procedures were in use there. It looks like they're optical scan machines, so hopefully they have the paper ballots on hand to do a proper audit. That, along with the voter rolls, should be able to determine what the issues were. That's a strength of using the optical machines as opposed to the purely electronic ones. You're right that Detroit is just one city. It's also a city that's deeply troubled on many levels, so I'm not sure if it's fair to consider it typical. That's by no means excusing what look to be issues there. Those should definitely be looked into, and exhaustively. You're claim above is that there were enough fraudulent votes that Trump would have over 50% of the popular vote if they were removed. Detroit alone isn't enough to do this.
        MicroBerto 10y ago
        > I'm particularly interested in what types of machines More important is to look at who's got owning shares in those machines..... In the perfect world, we'd have open source machines that all enter voites into a public blockchain/ledger and you'd get a private key you could verify your vote with. Optical sounds awesome. But good luck with that. The fraud just seems to swing back and forth from left to right every X years instead. It's madness. My claim is just a bet right now. But it's one I'm willing to put money on IF they actually do a national investigation, which I'm not confident will happen.
        grzm 10y ago
        Going back to my original comment, widespread faith that the voting process is safe is just as important as whether it actually is. Casting doubt on the process without really solid evidence undermines this faith. By no means do I want to be Pollyannaish about this: it's too important. Which is why I want to see improvements in the voting process. If voting integrity is something you feel particularly strongly about (I certainly do), I encourage to look into the work that's already out there. The 2000 election spurred a lot of research. Some good starting points are: Ronald L. Rivest MIT Auditability and Verifiability of Elections ACM-IEEE talk March 16, 2016 https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/pubs/Riv16x.pdf https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/pubs/Riv16x.pdf --- Ben Adida Google Tech Talks December 19, 2007 Theory and Practice of Cryptography: Verifying Electiosns with Cryptography https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnShu5V99s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnShu5V99s

hedora 10y ago

That is what North Carolina thought. Major companies pressuring the government helps shift people's opinions on what is acceptable in modern society. Even if you don't care about doing the right thing, losing some business from a (shrinking) minority of Americans is probably worth the positive publicity overseas, economic stability, retaining visa-holding employees, etc.

mattieuga 10y ago

/s/majority/almost half

MicroBerto 10y ago
s/almost half/over half after fraudulent votes removed
- grzm 10y ago
  Unless you have solid evidence for this, please don't sow seeds of doubt regarding the integrity of the voting process. Edit: s/election/voting/ The election includes the whole primary system and the electoral college. Here I specifically mean the vote.
  - MicroBerto 10y ago
    Detroit is just one city (http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-votes-detroits-precincts/95363314/ http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/re...). How many others are there? That's plenty for the seeds of doubt, especially given how easy it is to vote in several states.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Thanks for the link. The initial results there are definitely problematic. If I'm reading the article correctly, they're expected to run a full audit to see if the results are confirmed, correct? I'm particularly interested in what types of machines and other voting procedures were in use there. It looks like they're optical scan machines, so hopefully they have the paper ballots on hand to do a proper audit. That, along with the voter rolls, should be able to determine what the issues were. That's a strength of using the optical machines as opposed to the purely electronic ones. You're right that Detroit is just one city. It's also a city that's deeply troubled on many levels, so I'm not sure if it's fair to consider it typical. That's by no means excusing what look to be issues there. Those should definitely be looked into, and exhaustively. You're claim above is that there were enough fraudulent votes that Trump would have over 50% of the popular vote if they were removed. Detroit alone isn't enough to do this.
      - MicroBerto 10y ago
        > I'm particularly interested in what types of machines More important is to look at who's got owning shares in those machines..... In the perfect world, we'd have open source machines that all enter voites into a public blockchain/ledger and you'd get a private key you could verify your vote with. Optical sounds awesome. But good luck with that. The fraud just seems to swing back and forth from left to right every X years instead. It's madness. My claim is just a bet right now. But it's one I'm willing to put money on IF they actually do a national investigation, which I'm not confident will happen.
        grzm 10y ago
        Going back to my original comment, widespread faith that the voting process is safe is just as important as whether it actually is. Casting doubt on the process without really solid evidence undermines this faith. By no means do I want to be Pollyannaish about this: it's too important. Which is why I want to see improvements in the voting process. If voting integrity is something you feel particularly strongly about (I certainly do), I encourage to look into the work that's already out there. The 2000 election spurred a lot of research. Some good starting points are: Ronald L. Rivest MIT Auditability and Verifiability of Elections ACM-IEEE talk March 16, 2016 https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/pubs/Riv16x.pdf https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/pubs/Riv16x.pdf --- Ben Adida Google Tech Talks December 19, 2007 Theory and Practice of Cryptography: Verifying Electiosns with Cryptography https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnShu5V99s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnShu5V99s