Before I get into this analysis, I want it known that I am not voting for Trump. Nor am I voting for Clinton, but Cory Heidelberger is:
Yes, I’m over my 1990s anti-Clinton Republicanism. Hillary Clinton deserves to be our next President.
Cory is being a typical partisan who refuses to see the truth, which is; he has also gotten over his Democratic anti-cronyism. This is what his presidential pick had done:
Cisco Systems had a public relations problem: Having invested $16 billion in the Chinese market, the technology giant was suddenly facing congressional scrutiny over its alleged complicity in building the so-called Great Firewall that helps China’s authoritarian regime censor information and surveil its citizens.
The San Jose, California, company endured a high-profile Senate hearing about its Chinese operations in 2008 and reaffirmed its “continued commitment to China.” But the issue wouldn’t die. A group of investors stormed the company’s annual meeting in November 2009, pressing a shareholder resolution that would force the company to prevent the Chinese government from using Cisco technology to engage in what critics said was widespread human-rights abuse.
That’s when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tossed the company a lifeline. Weeks after Cisco executives opposed the initiative and it was then voted down by shareholders, Cisco was honored as a finalist for the State Department’s award for “outstanding corporate citizenship, innovation and democratic principles.” The next year, the company won the award. While the honors were for the company’s work in the Middle East, they gave Cisco a well-timed opportunity to change the subject and present itself as a champion of human rights.
What Clinton did not say at the State Department award ceremonies was that Cisco had been pumping money into her family’s foundation. Though the foundation will not release an exact timeline of the contributions, records reviewed by International Business Times show that Cisco had by December 2008 donated from $500,000 to $1 million to the foundation. The company had hired lobbying firms run by former Clinton aides. After the money flowed into the foundation, Clinton’s State Department not only lauded Cisco’s human rights record, it also delivered millions of dollars worth of new government contracts to the company.
The most recent foundation records available show that Cisco has donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, all told.
And so much for Cory's partisan anti-Clinton Republicanism propaganda:
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton’s relationship with Cisco has continued. In August, she appeared at the company for a surprise visit. Chambers interviewed her onstage, telling employees: “I’m a strong Republican, but I think President Clinton got it right with business and knocked the ball out of the park.”
Cory's post was in regard to the debate. A comment hits the truth:
Oligarchy won, the American people lost.
First, some facts. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, including her Super PAC, has received a lot of money from the employees and registered lobbyists of fossil-fuel companies. There’s the much-cited $4.5 million that Greenpeace calculated, which includes bundling by lobbyists.
But that’s not all. There is also a lot more money from sources not included in those calculations. For instance, one of Clinton’s most prominent and active financial backers is Warren Buffett. While he owns a large mix of assets, Buffett is up to his eyeballs in coal, including coal transportation and some of the dirtiest coal-fired power plants in the country.
Then there’s all the cash that fossil-fuel companies have directly pumped into the Clinton Foundation. In recent years, Exxon, Shell, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron have all contributed to the foundation. An investigation in the International Business Times just revealed that at least two of these oil companies were part of an effort to lobby Clinton’s State Department about the Alberta tar sands, a massive deposit of extra-dirty oil. Leading climate scientists like James Hansen have explained that if we don’t keep the vast majority of that carbon in the ground, we will unleash catastrophic levels of warming.
During this period, the investigation found, Clinton’s State Department approved the Alberta Clipper, a controversial pipeline carrying large amounts of tar-sands bitumen from Alberta to Wisconsin. “According to federal lobbying records reviewed by the IBT,” write David Sirota and Ned Resnikoff, “Chevron and ConocoPhillips both lobbied the State Department specifically on the issue of ‘oil sands’ in the immediate months prior to the department’s approval, as did a trade association funded by ExxonMobil.”
If you read Cory's web site you would believe that only Republicans would support tar-sand pipelines. And Cory believes Hillary understands biodiversity:
Scientific American asked our Presidential candidates twenty questions about science and technology issues. The responses on biodiversity demonstrate the difference between the informed and practical Democrat and the clueless and sloganeering Republican.
Looks like Cory is wearing the Republican uninformed, clueless, and sloganeering hat as he endorses the Queen of crony capitalism for president. I have been blocked from Cory's web site because I would interfere with his partisan agenda by explaining the oligarchy controls both parties, and that is why other candidates were not allowed to be part of the debate. So he has no excuse for being clueless. He has decided that is the way he wants to be; an uninformed clueless sloganeering Democrat.
UPDATE: Here is the logic of the clueless partisan Democrats who end up endorsing the Queen of crony capitalism:
At this point, Gary Johnson is at 10% or less. Jill Stein is at 5% or less. Neither of them is going to be president. Your choices are HRC or Trump. If you are overly critical of HRC, then you are indirectly supporting Trump, even if you are not voting for him.
What I would like is a fair debate of Clinton versus Trump. If you come on here and cite Trump’s son-in-law, you are darn right I’m going to question your position. If you are going to go after HRC, I would like to see a comparison with Trump. I provide the case for HRC. If you are against HRC, you have to provide the case for why Trump should be president, because those are the only two viable choices at this point.