No Fortune 100 CEOs Back Republican Donald Trump

[ag]

   Don't think too many CEO's like the idea of restricting immigration, or even the talk thereof.  All aboard the Brazilification train.

I see, the Nazification brigade has made its appearance.

[Adam Griffin]

The Republicans aren't the working class party and that won't change with this election.  Whites love to overlook that many members of the working class are actually minorities.  Go figure!

Hate to break it to you dude, but the working class vote has been voting Republican for quite awhile now.

Uh, hate to break it to you, bud, but whites earning less than $50k per year are more Democratic than whites earning more than $50k per year. McCain won the former group by just 4; the latter group by 13. If you want to brag about the GOP winning working-class whites by a few percentage points as if it's some sort of mandate, then I guess you can do so...but the notion that they've been some reliably GOP voting bloc outside of the South for ages is ridiculous.

The only reason whites as a whole aren't a swing voting bloc is because of bourgeoisie cookie-cutter suburbanites.

[Xing]

Dems in 2012: Romney is bad for being the candidate of the rich
Dems in 2016: Trump is bad for not being the candidate of the rich.

Cute strawman, but no, we think Trump is bad for... other reasons.

I just mean in regards to this thread. If a bunch of fortune 100 CEOs came out tomorrow and endorsed Trump there would be a thread about how he was in the pocket of big money.

Perhaps, but it's not like Trump supporters would be throwing these CEOs under the bus if they had endorsed Trump. Personally, I don't care who CEOs endorse.

[Devout Centrist]

Wow! Republicans are now the party of socialism. Hilarious.

[7,052,770]

If you're a Fortune 100 CEO, you're a very smart, hard-working, highly successful person. That, of course, doesn't mean that millions of other people aren't also all of those qualities, but if I were running for president, I would want the support of all 100 of them. You (should) always want the smart, successful people on your side.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If you're a Fortune 100 CEO, you're a very smart, hard-working, highly successful person. That, of course, doesn't mean that millions of other people aren't also all of those qualities, but if I were running for president, I would want the support of all 100 of them. You (should) always want the smart, successful people on your side.

There is so much wrong with this post.

[Ebowed]

No it hasn't. No matter how you define "working class" that's just not empirically true.

I should've been more clear in what I was referring to and said the white working class, so my bad on that front. And no, Obama only got 36% from that group in 2012 and 40% in 2008.

So what did you 'break' to me then?  The entire point of my remark is that you would overlook that working class people are often minorities, and then you did.

[Maxwell]

Dems in 2012: Romney is bad for being the candidate of the rich
Dems in 2016: Trump is bad for not being the candidate of the rich.

Cute strawman, but no, we think Trump is bad for... other reasons.

I just mean in regards to this thread. If a bunch of fortune 100 CEOs came out tomorrow and endorsed Trump there would be a thread about how he was in the pocket of big money.

his policies, on their face, benefit the top 100 CEOs in the country by a lot more than Hillary's do. It speaks volumes that Trump doesn't have their confidence.

[Bismarck]

The Republicans aren't the working class party and that won't change with this election.  Whites love to overlook that many members of the working class are actually minorities.  Go figure!

Hate to break it to you dude, but the working class vote has been voting Republican for quite awhile now.

Uh, hate to break it to you, bud, but whites earning less than $50k per year are more Democratic than whites earning more than $50k per year. McCain won the former group by just 4; the latter group by 13. If you want to brag about the GOP winning working-class whites by a few percentage points as if it's some sort of mandate, then I guess you can do so...but the notion that they've been some reliably GOP voting bloc outside of the South for ages is ridiculous.

The only reason whites as a whole aren't a swing voting bloc is because of bourgeoisie cookie-cutter suburbanites.

Glad to see this post. So many people on this forum seem to have the idea that wealthy suburban whites are democrats.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

If you're a Fortune 100 CEO, you're a very smart, hard-working, highly successful person. That, of course, doesn't mean that millions of other people aren't also all of those qualities, but if I were running for president, I would want the support of all 100 of them. You (should) always want the smart, successful people on your side.

Well... Many of them, granted, did get there by their own work and ingenuity (though certainly not all of them; family ties will do that for you), but this still ignores that many would want what's best for them. Trump's tax plan definitely fits the bill (he wants to yuuugely slash taxes on the rich after all), and yet these people still refuse to endorse him. Hmmm... I wonder why...?

[GeorgiaModerate]

If you're a Fortune 100 CEO, you're a very smart, hard-working, highly successful person. That, of course, doesn't mean that millions of other people aren't also all of those qualities, but if I were running for president, I would want the support of all 100 of them. You (should) always want the smart, successful people on your side.

Well... Many of them, granted, did get there by their own work and ingenuity (though certainly not all of them; family ties will do that for you), but this still ignores that many would want what's best for them. Trump's tax plan definitely fits the bill (he wants to yuuugely slash taxes on the rich after all), and yet these people still refuse to endorse him. Hmmm... I wonder why...?

Because one thing they really don't like is uncertainty and instability?  They know pretty much what they're going to get with Clinton and what the effect on the economy is likely to be.  With Trump, all bets are off.

[DIXIECRAT]

Well, I guess nobody believes "the most progressive presidential candidate ever" would be "the most progressive President ever". I'm not sure if this is a strength or a weakness for Hillary.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

If you're a Fortune 100 CEO, you're a very smart, hard-working, highly successful person. That, of course, doesn't mean that millions of other people aren't also all of those qualities, but if I were running for president, I would want the support of all 100 of them. You (should) always want the smart, successful people on your side.

Well... Many of them, granted, did get there by their own work and ingenuity (though certainly not all of them; family ties will do that for you), but this still ignores that many would want what's best for them. Trump's tax plan definitely fits the bill (he wants to yuuugely slash taxes on the rich after all), and yet these people still refuse to endorse him. Hmmm... I wonder why...?

Because one thing they really don't like is uncertainty and instability?  They know pretty much what they're going to get with Clinton and what the effect on the economy is likely to be.  With Trump, all bets are off.

Exactly what I was trying to say

[RINO Tom]

Wow! Republicans are now the party of socialism. Hilarious.

LOL, didn't a self-proclaimed socialist almost win the Democratic nomination, pulling his opponent to more or less adopt all of his main economic policies in the process (an end result that Democratic voters were more than okay with)?  By any objective measure, Donald Trump's fiscal policies are more business-friendly than Hillary's; this speaks a LOT more toward how terrible of a candidate Donald Trump is than some shift in party coalitions that Santender and ag fantasize about at night.  What do you want to bet that the wealthy, the educated and all these other groups that forum Democrats have been trashing as over-privileged for years vote solidly Republican in House races?

[ag]

Wow! Republicans are now the party of socialism. Hilarious.

LOL, didn't a self-proclaimed socialist almost win the Democratic nomination, pulling his opponent to more or less adopt all of his main economic policies in the process (an end result that Democratic voters were more than okay with)?  By any objective measure, Donald Trump's fiscal policies are more business-friendly than Hillary's; this speaks a LOT more toward how terrible of a candidate Donald Trump is than some shift in party coalitions that Santender and ag fantasize about at night.  What do you want to bet that the wealthy, the educated and all these other groups that forum Democrats have been trashing as over-privileged for years vote solidly Republican in House races?

Republican party, of course, is not socialist at this point. It is National Socialist.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

In practice, the Republican PArty is (unwittingly) the strongest anticapitalist force in the world.

[Human]

Wow! Republicans are now the party of socialism. Hilarious.

LOL, didn't a self-proclaimed socialist almost win the Democratic nomination, pulling his opponent to more or less adopt all of his main economic policies in the process (an end result that Democratic voters were more than okay with)?  By any objective measure, Donald Trump's fiscal policies are more business-friendly than Hillary's; this speaks a LOT more toward how terrible of a candidate Donald Trump is than some shift in party coalitions that Santender and ag fantasize about at night.  What do you want to bet that the wealthy, the educated and all these other groups that forum Democrats have been trashing as over-privileged for years vote solidly Republican in House races?

Here are two interesting article that I HIGHLY encourage you to read:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/07/michael_bloomberg_s_endorsement_of_hillary_clinton_shows_the_democrats_are.html

http://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/6/3/11843780/democrats-wealthy-party

[Person Man]

Wow! Republicans are now the party of socialism. Hilarious.

National socialism.

[Person Man]

Wow! Republicans are now the party of socialism. Hilarious.

National socialism.

[Intell]

The idea that wealthy people back democrats, and that un-educated people back Republicans, is a good thing, is a fallacy. Poor whites, are more likely to vote democrat, than richer whites, this has been less the case, with Obama as a leader, but there are still such differences.

[Hilldog]

Well this shows who their real loyalty is to.  So much for the top 1% talking points.