High-Profile GOP Donor Meg Whitman Indicates She Is Likely to Support Hillary Clinton

The donor is Meg Whitman:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/high-profile-gop-donor-meg-whitman-support-hillary/story?id=39774523

It's not absolutely final, and it's not clear if she would donate to Hillary:

But what should be more worrisome for the GOP and Trump is that she's not alone, by any stretch:

When a room full of reliable GOP megadonors is evenly split between the GOP nominee and the Democratic nominee, that's a really bad indicator for the GOP.

 

Just shows you who the corporate whore is doesn't it. Who's going to do the bidding of her corporate owners and screw the American people.

 

Nice spin, but what it actually shows you is how toxic Trump is. This didn't happen when Reagan ran. This didn't happen when other GOP candidates ran. It is only happening with Trump.

And the reason for the opposition isn't policy based. The story makes clear it is because of Trump's naked racism and Fascistic tendencies. Whitman is concerned that Trump could be the next Mussolini. It has nothing to do with who the "corporate whore" is.

 

Like I said in a previous post - RINO's and progressives are the same.

I hope she does donate to and support Hillary so real republicans can see how they're being screwed and how ONLY libertarians actually care about them.....

Look how fast these alleged "GOP" are ready to side with progressives - NOT democrats but progressives....

 

Keep telling yourself that. Of course they'll give other excuses instead of saying I can buy her but not him. She's got the check stubs to prove it.

 

No what it shows is how quick republicans will bow to anyone that will allow them to keep some sort of tyrannical power....... Trump is only toxic to the establishment - not to the typical citizen.

 

This sort of delusional thinking is why the GOP is in the mess it is, and why Trump is the nominee.

What are "real" Republicans? Who gets to define that?

And which libertarians are you talking about? Gary Johnson? Or people like Rand Paul? Certainly not Trump -- there is nothing libertarian about him. Indeed, there is nothing PRINCIPLED about him.

"How fast"? Trump has been making incendiary statements and demonstrating his ignorance for months.

And what do you mean "not democrats but progressives"? Hillary Clinton is a centrist Democrat, standard conservative efforts to claim she's a socialist notwithstanding. There was an actual socialist in the race; he didn't win. Clinton beat him. From the right, not the left.

- - - Updated - - -

Your unsupported assertions carry no weight. You are throwing fact-free mud in hopes something sticks.

 

LOL. Who in this country has "tyrannical power"?

Trump is toxic to everyone. He's a bigoted, narcissistic know-nothing. He lies CONSTANTLY. That's not even opinion -- it's documented fact. He lies openly and repeatedly about everything, even stuff that is easily debunked.

His latest: He has sued a Westchester town over property taxes, claiming in court documents that his golf course there is worth just $1.5 million, not $50 million.

But in his latest federal disclosure filings, he claims the golf course is worth $50 million.

So did he lie in court, or did he lie in his federal disclosure forms?

Trump has managed to alienate a huge swath of America -- women, minorities, college-educated whites, even wealthy GOP donors. It's a truly impressive achievement. But it's because Trump is a jerk, not because he's some sort of Second Coming.

 

Sure, sure ignore the stinch of the whore, I would too.

 

Trump alienated minorities...

Keep telling minorities they've been alienated. Keep repeating it in their face in the hopes you can convince them that's it's in their best interest to vote themselves out of jobs and into more government dependence.

 

LOL. Trump supporters have been hanging on that one article for days now. Never mind that all the actual polling shows that Trump's support among Hispanics is less than 25%. Some examples:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...no-voters-meh-on-clinton-thumbs-down-on-trump
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/20/politics/fox-news-latino-poll-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/

Cherry-picking isn't an attractive trait. You should stop doing it.

 

No surprise that the GOP establishment that wanted Jeb Bush would rather see a crook and incompetent like Hillary Clinton run the nation than back Trump
who threatens their democrat-lite plans for governance. The RNC can go to hell.

 

because the others are sure the candidate will do their bidding. Not so sure with trump. It has more to do with free trade policies than anything else.

Mousillini or whatever will not happen. Can you imagine any scenario where trump ends up so popular that the citizens decide to do away with the vote and declare him dictator for life? Not in the US.

 

Nice theory, but there is literally no evidence for it. While there is plenty of evidence that she is turned off by Trump's toxic personality.

I hope so. But I see no reason to risk it, especially to elect a narcissistic know-nothing with delusions of grandeur.

 

No, it really isn't. One one side you have words, on the other you have breach of protocol and allowing American secrets to be exposed for your convenience. this convenience may have been the reason people died in Benghazi if she were hacked and the back and forths about security concerns fell into the wrong hands.

No, it's not reasonable at all to back this kind of action just because the other candidate says words that make you feel bad.

 

That attempted comparison only resonates with hard-core partisans. The reality is that Obama not only had far more political experience than Trump has, he was way more knowledgable about the issues of the day. Further, he had specific, detailed policy proposals for addressing those issues, and could talk about them intelligently.

What's silly is having spent eight years bashing Obama as a lightweight. then supporting a candidate who DEFINES the term.

 

Hillary could have all the money in the world and still lose. It all comes down to the VOTERS and most know who they want.

 

Goes to show it does not matter what party a candidate is, the corporation folks will back whoever gives them the most benefits.

 

Because Hillary can be bought.
This says it all.

 

We get it, we really do. The bipartisan establishment, the ruling class, the elites, the 1 percenters, they all support candidates like Hillary who represent their interests... Trump has been saying the same thing since he started his campaign but actually we had known it long before him so we are not surprised.

But by all means, keep starting a new thread every time yet another donor, lobbyist, political hack, Washington insider announces his/her support for Clinton in your naïve conviction that their getting in bed with corrupt crooked Hillary is somehow a condemnation of Trump in the eyes of the middle class Americans.

 

LOL at the idea that this demonstrates that Trump is a fighter for the middle class.

Never mind that his tax plan involves massive tax cuts for the rich and a higher burden on the middle class.

He has alienated women, minorities, the GOP donor class, and college-educated whites. He only represents the "middle class" 'if by that you mean "angry white men without college degrees."' And ironically, what few policy proposals he has tend to screw that group, while throwing them BS feel-good crap about immigration and Muslims.

 

You are the one incessantly talking (including in this OP) about the 1 percenters, donors, lobbyists and Washington elites overwhelmingly supporting Hillary. Somehow I suspect they know better where their interests are, with Trump's reforms in favor of the middle-class or Hillary's business as usual.

PS The median income of Trump supporters is 30% higher than their corresponding state income and 20% higher than the median income of Sanders' and Hillary's supporters. So much for this "angry white men without college degree" liberal lie. Duh

 

Then why are you a LIAR in your thread title: Thread: GOP megadonor says she will support Clinton

Even the article you cite doesn't LIE like YOU. Headline from story:

High-Profile GOP Donor Meg Whitman Indicates She Is Likely to Support Hillary Clinton, Say Sources

I DESPISE LIARS!

- - - Updated - - -

The spin is yours. You LIED in your thread title.

 

Where did I say he was a fighter of the middle class in my post? To the men behind the curtain with all the money, it really doesn't matter what party a candidate belongs to, they'll donate to anyone and everyone (as Trump has in the past) for something in return.

 

I'm glad that people seem to be thinking less and less of party loyalty, and especially when it comes to less than capable candidates like Donald Trump. Opposing him means opposing the transition of America into Donald Trump's personal soap opera. Can you imagine? The craziness that man would do with the ability to have the presidential seal behind him? Holy jumping Moses. That's scarier than anything Hollywood or the literature world have ever come up with.