Trump Issues Order To Block Broadcom's Takeover of Qualcomm (bloomberg.com) 230
Bloomberg reports that President Donald Trump issued an executive order today blocking Broadcom from acquiring Qualcomm, "scuttling a $117 billion deal that had been subject to U.S. government scrutiny on national security grounds." From the report: The president acted on a recommendation by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which reviews acquisitions of American firms by foreign investors. The decision to block the deal was unveiled just hours after Broadcom Chief Executive Officer Hock Tan met with security officials at the Pentagon in a last-ditch effort to salvage the transaction. "There is credible evidence that leads me to believe that Broadcom Ltd." by acquiring Qualcomm "might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States," Trump said in the order released Monday evening in Washington.
Anticorporatists will oppose this (Score:1)
For some reason.
Re: (Score:1)
The rest of us dodged the Braulcom bullet.
Seen this before: Fairchild (Score:4, Informative)
This reminds me of a similar deal that was similarly scuttled: the proposed purchase of Fairchild Semiconductor [nytimes.com] that was then owned by French company Schlumberger, to Fujitsu, a Japanese company. In either case, Fairchild would have been owned by a non-US company from a "friendly" country. National security was the given reason, but Japan's then-growing leadership in semiconductors against US companies was the understory.
Re:Seen this before: Fairchild (Score:4, Informative)
In this case the understory seems to be America's growing leadership in semiconductors against US companies. The current Broadcom was formed by a merger between Broadcom of California, and Avago, which was formed when two New York based private equity firms bought the semiconductor division of Agilent, which itself was spun out of HP. Being private equity vultures, they moved corporate headquarters to a more tax friendly location, but the operations are still very much based in the US.
Maybe Obama was somehow involved in setting up the deal, that would explain why Trump has to scuttle it now.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The current Broadcom was formed by a merger between Broadcom of California, and Avago, which was formed when two New York based private equity firms bought the semiconductor division of Agilent, which itself was spun out of HP. Being private equity vultures, they moved corporate headquarters to a more tax friendly location, but the operations are still very much based in the US.
They are based in Singapore. Also, what you call a merger is what anyone else would call a buyout.
That Singapore based company now wants to buy out the US based Qualcomm.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a wh (Score:2, Informative)
Avago (a Singapore company) purchased that Broadcom and renamed themselves Broadcom.
Avago itself started as the semiconductor division of HP, but was sold off as part of the HP-Agilent divestment to private equity firms.
Broadcom itself is an amalgamation of the various companies it purchased over the years. This probably helps to explain why there isn't much coherence to thier documentation or general business strategy.
Appropriate decision. (Score:1, Offtopic)
It is hard enough for us to protect our privacy against the likes of Google. Throwing foreign entities into the mix would be suicide.
Re: (Score:2)
As if self-destruction and suicide was ever much of a deterrent for our federal government.
Re: (Score:1)
It is hard enough for us to protect our privacy against the likes of Google. Throwing foreign entities into the mix would be suicide.
Yeah, that's why we Brazilians were worried last month upon hearing about Boeing's desire to embrace and extinguish our greatest source of industrial pride, EMBRAER.
Unfortunately our president's spine was more flaccid than Trump's, and now Boeing has a big share of Embraer, to our disgust.
Y'know, I have to wonder.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It has become apparent to me that the man uses the expression to mean whatever he thinks it ought to mean, and has no bearing on the actual definition of the term.
Re:Y'know, I have to wonder.... (Score:4, Informative)
Obama did the same. So did Bush. And Clinton and the other Bush and so on way back over a century. It's a standard political practice that falls under the umbrella of protecting US interests.
It seems new only because you have never paid attention before.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you just had every opportunity to enlighten me, and decided to be vague enough about it that unless I already knew specifically what you were talking about (which by your own admission, you were clearly aware of since you explicitly suggested that I may not have been paying attention), I wouldn't be able to do any kind of search to find out more about it and educate myself on the matter. So from where I'm sitting it looks like you are either making stuff up, or else you're the kind of person who wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you expect that people who take stances *similar* to that of a person would ever dislike him?
If you don't, then why is it somehow suddenly more apparent to you that people who take stances that are in stark contrast to a person would not like that person?
Intel won this round to stay alive... (Score:1)
so basically, lobbyists for Intel were successful to fend of this merger, as it would've definitely sunk the Intel behemoth.
now they managed to maintain status quo until the next time...
Re: Intel won this round to stay alive... (Score:3, Insightful)
And the alternative was even more grim. Broadcom has proven itself to be utterly incompetent and unfriendly. It was almost immediately apparent that they just wanted to kill the competition in a anti-competitive manner.
This was a good decision, even if for the wrong reason. Sometimes, you just have to take what you can get.
Trump's administration issued the order (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Trump's administration issued the order (Score:4, Interesting)
If Trump didn't mean what he said, why did Breitbart run the headline: "Trump the gun grabber"? Why did the NRA feel they needed to have a meeting with him after these comments? You can say people are being dumb and the President didn't mean what he said... But a lot of conservatives seemed to take it the same way.
Re: (Score:1)
If Trump didn't mean what he said, why did Breitbart run the headline: "Trump the gun grabber"?
So people like you would click on it. See how that works?
Why did the NRA feel they needed to have a meeting with him after these comments?
For appearances. So that people like, when they saw that both parties left the meeting without their hair on fire, would be denied the chance to spread around a phony narrative.
You can say people are being dumb and the President didn't mean what he said... But a lot of conservatives seemed to take it the same way.
He was speaking casually, not lawerly. Which you're trying to pretend you don't know, because it helps your narrative to assert otherwise. And no, there aren't any significant number of conservatives are the least bit worried about that. Because he's more than clarified the
Re: Trump's administration issued the order (Score:5, Informative)
If Trump didn't mean what he said, why did Breitbart run the headline: "Trump the gun grabber"?
So people like you would click on it. See how that works?
They needed to remind Trump that his base was pro-gun.
Why did the NRA feel they needed to have a meeting with him after these comments?
For appearances. So that people like, when they saw that both parties left the meeting without their hair on fire, would be denied the chance to spread around a phony narrative.
The NRA needed to meet with Trump because the NRA realizes that Trump tends to agree with whomever spoke with him last.
You can say people are being dumb and the President didn't mean what he said... But a lot of conservatives seemed to take it the same way.
He was speaking casually, not lawerly. Which you're trying to pretend you don't know, because it helps your narrative to assert otherwise. And no, there aren't any significant number of conservatives are the least bit worried about that. Because he's more than clarified the matter, for those who think a single sound bite out of context is some sort of executed policy.
He was speaking out of his ass because he has no idea what he's talking about. I'm not saying he's an idiot, I honestly don't know if he's smart or dumb. But I do know he has no attention span, you can hear it every time he talks when he goes flying off on tangents left and right and can barely string together two sentences on the same topic.
That's his basic problem as President, issues are complex and he can't pay attention long enough to really analyze the issues, so instead he just listens to people and tries to get the high level picture. The problem is a smart knowledgeable person can make a superficially compelling case for any position in a complex topic. So if you want Trump to decide on a certain course all you need to do is surround him with the right people and he'll eventually agree with you. That's why the GOP is so confident they can sway him on almost any issue unless he's completely obsessed with it (ie trade), because they can control enough of the people he talks to and none of the nuts on his call list want gun control either. Plus, on something like guns you need actual legislation and the GOP controlled congress will never pass significant gun control.
The president acted on a recommendation ... (Score:1)
You could finish the summary right there, and it would be news. President takes advice, rather than just going with the first thing to pop out of his head, or whatever got the biggest cheer at a political rally.
The only one... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I am pretty good with both of these outcomes. It was pretty clear broadcom just wanted to gut qualcomm.
Re: Not going to mention (Score:1)
I guess in your universe "the news broke" means "Senate Republicans declared"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Not going to mention (Score:4, Informative)
So we're going to post this story, but completely ignore the news that broke today that the whole "Russian hacked the election" and "Russia colluded with Trump" turned out to be entirely false?
No, House Republicans came up with that conclusion, somehow opposing the entire US intelligence community in the process. The fact that they both decided that Russians did meddle in the elections but somehow did not sought to help Trump is some Orwellian-level doublethink.
Re: (Score:3)
Basically, the defense is "Trump and his campaign team were a pack of fucking idiots."
I guess complete incompetence and a total lack of judgment is better than being outright corrupt. Sure glad we've cleared that up. Here, Mr. Trump, the dumbest candidate in history, here's a nuclear power to run for four years. Try not to electrocute yourself, or irradiate the planet! Don't worry, a Republican Congress terrified of the mouth breathing base has your back, at least until the mouth breathers figure they elect
Re: (Score:1)
Here, Mr. Trump, the dumbest candidate in history
So, how does someone so dumb become a billionaire anyway? If we went by your posts in this topic alone, you'd be halfway to that goal already.
You know what? Let's play a game of what-if. And let's say Trump manages to get N.Korea to back down, denuclearize, and a peace treaty all at one go. Which is what the N.Koreans are now pushing, and pushing for hard. Is he still dumb? Or is he smarter then the previous president(and want-to-be president), that destabilized the middle east, created a massive refu
Re: (Score:2)
So, how does someone so dumb become a billionaire anyway?
Is he a billionaire? I'd like to see tax returns please.
Re: (Score:2)
Is he a billionaire? I'd like to see tax returns please.
You don't need to, look at the amount of property he owns. That's how 'net worth' is calculated after all. Earnings is something else, you should understand this basic fact.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how 'net worth' is calculated after all.
What the fuck are you babbling about? "Net worth" is the delta between assets and liabilities.
And no, i don't know how many property Trump has. Neither do you, because HE DIDN'T SHOW HIS TAX RETURNS.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And you still couldn't answer my question could you? Got some nice whataboutism going on there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh please. This investigation has been going on for over a year, with not even a hint of any collusion. The only ones being blinded by partisanship are the left, mad at President Trump for defeating The Annointed One.
19 indictments (13 of them Russian nationals) and 5 guilty pleas so far might disagree with what you deem as reality.
Re: Not going to mention (Score:1, Informative)
Except that none of the indictments have anything to do with trump Russia or the election. Why is it that you guys always leave that part out? Oh yeah because this is a witch hunt.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
"Leave that part out"? Yeah Boris, i guess charging thirteen Russians of running a state-sponsored effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign has nothing to do with Russia.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Thirteen random Russians defeated a 2 billion dollar presidential campaign where the leftist candidate lost to "literally Hitler" who was also facing 95% negative reporting in all major news media throughout the US?
You probably should take a step back and think about your claims and the sense of relative scale of importance.
95% of the media
2,000,000,000 dollars
a thousand Hollywood celebrities
all major tech companies, Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter
several million volunteers
more than a few thousand non-cit
Re: (Score:2)
To accept accountability would be to admit being terribly flawed, and invite reform. That will never happen for an organization that is this steeped in hypocrisy. Deny, and accuse others of which you are guilty.
So its Sander's fault, and Stein, and Comey, and deplorables, and now Russians with paltry advertiser spending. They have their own army of paid trolls and allied media to make any correlation a causation, and then an accepted narrative.
Free speech proves to be an obstacle for their gaslighting ef
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, what are you denying? Are you denying that Russians interfered with the election? That Sanders' run hurt Clinton overall? That Stein pulled votes away from Clinton? That Comey released a "Look at this! Well, apparently nothing." late in October? That it was a close election that could have been changed by a few hundred thousand votes in a few key states? Let's discuss the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
What does facts matter to those whose goal is to work backwards from the conclusion that Clinton could not have lost due to her unsuitability as a candidate. There's no need to rehash these details ad naeseam, as their significance is overshadowed by the Democratic Party's inability to live up to their own namesake.
Everyone who disagrees or does not march in lockstep with the image of Trump as an inflated evil monster and pawn of a foreign enemy, will likewise be branded a pawn of a foreign enemy. Thinkin
Re: (Score:2)
Except that you're making those people up, by and large. To those of us who are reasonable, it's obvious that there were things that hindered Clinton's campaign (one of them, of course, being that she isn't charismatic like Bill), and that things like Comey's October semi-revelation and Russian meddling were improper.
It was a close election, so changing one of those could have changed the outcome. (Heck, one of the reasons Gore lost in 2000 was a bipartisan decision to have an illegal "butterfly" ballo
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I don't swallow the bandwagon fallacy from the left that Clinton was unfairly disadvantaged, when she was so unfairly advantaged to the point of possibly even having her political opposition wiretapped via abuse of the FISA courts. Looking forward to a special counsel on that.
Russian meddling that disadvantaged Clinton in favor of Trump is also an assertion without basis in facts, and no, the conclusion by those on the DNC payroll that the email server was hacked by Russians that started this narr
Re: (Score:2)
People did things that were improper that worked against Clinton. These actions were meddling in an actual national election, as opposed to a party nomination process. There's a very large difference between the two.
I've seen no evidence that there were wiretaps on Clinton's political opposition because it was her opposition, although such evidence would be difficult to find if it existed. There were wiretaps on some members of the Trump campaign for other reasons. All of this is meaningless unless t
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Oh please. This investigation has been going on for over a year, with not even a hint of any collusion. The only ones being blinded by partisanship are the left, mad at President Trump for defeating The Annointed One.
Watergate break-in - June 17, 1972
Saturday night massacre - October 20, 1973
"I'm not a crook" speech - Nov 17, 1973
"One year of Watergate is enough" - SOTU address Jan 30, 1974
3 articles of impeachment approved - Jul 27-30, 1974
"Smoking Gun" tape released - Aug 5, 1974
Tricky Dick resigns - Aug 9, 1974
Re:Not going to mention (Score:4, Informative)
Sure: https://www.dni.gov/files/docu... [dni.gov]
This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the
motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations.
When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.
Re:Not going to mention (Score:4, Informative)
"The investigation is being closed with nothing found."
Cite?
" completely ignore the news that broke today that the whole "Russian hacked the election" and "Russia colluded ..."
All I see is some partisan republicans on a house commitee releasing a statement to that effect. Nobody else seems to be buying it; including the Democrats on that same committee. Nevermind the statement from the CIA etc.
In other words: shut up comrade.
Re:Not going to mention (Score:5, Interesting)
"The investigation is being closed with nothing found."
Cite?
" completely ignore the news that broke today that the whole "Russian hacked the election" and "Russia colluded ..."
All I see is some partisan republicans on a house commitee releasing a statement to that effect. Nobody else seems to be buying it; including the Democrats on that same committee. Nevermind the statement from the CIA etc.
In other words: shut up comrade.
After the memo I've been wondering if the Republicans on the house intelligence committee could be charged with obstruction of justice.
I mean if they're deliberately trying to tarnish the investigation and Mueller in order to give Trump cover to shut it down then that's pretty much the definition of obstruction.
Re: (Score:2)
"You liberals are so funny with your "partisan republican" but the good upstanding democrats aren't buying it."
Would you be happier if I said partisan republicans and partisan democrats? I only said partisan once to highlight that it was a partisan break, but if it means so much to you, yes, I recognize the the house comittee is split along partisan lines... as in both parties are being partisan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that's what happened today. Right. House Republicans issue a report that other Republicans did absolutely nothing wrong and they're shocked...SHOCKED, I tell you, that anyone would even suggest that other Republicans did anything improper to win an election. It's not like there have ever been any other examples of Republicans doing anything
Re: Not going to mention (Score:4, Informative)
Are you serious? Have you ever heard the name, "Richard M. Nixon"? He was the previous Republican president who resigned in shame after having illegal activity exposed by a special prosecutor. It was kind of a big news story. There were 69 indictments and 48 convictions. A whole bunch of Republicans went to prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: Not going to mention (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think you fully understood what I said. Because of the criminal activity around Richard Nixon's Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP) there were sixty-nine indictments and forty-eight convictions. People went to the federal penitentiary for years. Nixon resigned from the presidency and had to be pardoned by his (second) vice-president. And it all started with a burglary and a cover up. There were actually seventy-six indictments and fifty-five convictions during the Nixon Administration, but only 48 of those convictions were directly connected to crimes committed in relationship to Watergate break-in.
This is what you said in your previous comment:
Now, do you want to apologize to the class?
Clinton got a blowjob and lied about it. Nobody went to prison. Nobody was indicted. Nobody was convicted.
During the Obama administration, there were zero indictments, zero convictions, even though the House GOP conducted investigations that went on twice as long as the current House Intelligence Committee's. The came up with nothing. There have been already been 22 indictments during the Trump investigation and five convictions. That's convictions. Not allegations. Not accusations. Convictions. As in "guilty". As in felony. And we're not anywhere near the end. Mueller hasn't even gotten to interview Trump or his failsons or Ivanka yet. There are lots and lots of witnesses left to talk to.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Lol, the lefties are losing their minds. Not only is there no collusion found even when it was investigated by a corrupt DNC & deep state witch hunt, but what was found out during the whole process implicated the DNC and the Clinton's crooked foundation.
Next up, special prosecutor for the FISA abuses by the DNC. Sayonara, shitheads!
Re:Not going to mention (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, I'll bite. Here are the direct quotes of Conaway (a Republican):
"Bottom line: Russians did commit active measures against our elections in '16, and we think they'll do that in the future," Conaway said. "It's clear they sowed discord in our elections. ... But we couldn't establish the same conclusions the CIA did that they specifically wanted to help Trump."
Is that what you meant by "entirely false"? Plus, that doesn't really explain why the Republican majority shut down their investigation so quickly (unless they're trying to hide something). After all, nobody tried to shut down the 911 commission prematurely, when no evidence was found that US officials had colluded with Bin Laden. After all, the investigation was started to investigate "Russian Meddling", not specifically "Trump Collusion".
I wonder, when did that change for the Republicans?
And just to put things in perspective, even if you don't think that an attack on our leadership process an act of war (which is kind of silly if you don't think that), the 9/11 attack at the time cost us ~3,000 casualties, but in the case of Crimea, the Russian incursion has already cost our ally ~10,000 lives.
And please notice the weasel word "specifically" in "that [the Russians] specifically wanted to help Trump." Of course, we already know that's not true. The Russians were trying to help both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump (although Donald Trump is the only one that retweeted their stories).
And of course, that still doesn't explain why they'd shut down their own investigation so quickly, when everybody else, the Mueller team, Trump's own Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, etc. are raising even more alarms than ever before at a more frequent rate than ever before.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, collision doesn't mean collusion. The two terms are not even related.
Second, when someone says that x AND y "turned out to be entirely false".
I just need to prove one of those claims NOT false and I can ignore the rest. That's it. That's the beauty of boolean logic.
Seriously, I thought that Russian trolls would have been better at logic. Next time, please just escalate me directly to your supervisor.
Re:Your free market president at work! (Score:5, Funny)
Jokes aside I gotta kind of wonder (Score:2, Interesting)
So now we've got a country where 97% of Americans support Universal Background Checks on guns and zero chance of getting one, Our
Re:Jokes aside I gotta kind of wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
Are the Republican voters just living in a perfect bubble or do they really just not care as long as it doesn't have a D next to it's name?
Modern republicanism has all the symptoms of being a cult religion. What is worse is they blatantly ignore facts that don't fit into their world view. Their usual method of doing so is by bringing up some possibly true, possibly not bit of data from the opposition and justifying their decision to support their party by saying, well at least it is not that.
The really fun thing is the only thing they seem truly conservative about is conservation of excuses. They will use the same excuses, time, and time, and time again. Trump could be sleeping with ten different porn stars a night, and have kids with six of them and they would still justify or excuse it by pointing to Bill Clinton who hasn't been president for over 17 years.
Instead of setting a higher bar, ethics only matter if their opponent may not be squeaky clean. They are fine with their guy being a low life scum as long as he is their low life scum. Hillary was flat out guilty for her actions defending her husband and should never be president, at the same time Trump's people were paying off porn stars to shut up. Now I don't support Infidelity in any shape or form but a spouse has the right to defend the other spouse. End of story, well unless your a democrat I guess.
Re: Jokes aside I gotta kind of wonder (Score:1)
Yeah, totally! Amen!
Now hang on while I put on a black mask, riot and attack people, worship an ideology responsible for the death of hundreds of millions, and set fire to Universities where anyone dares to think or speak differently.
Re: (Score:1)
National socialism didn't kill hundreds of millions, communism did. The SS didn't set fire to Berkely, riot and call for the death of white men, antifa did.
You need to wake up, sweetie
Is it really infidelity for Trump? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Speaking of living in a bubble ...
PAC money is coming from all political sides. George Soros and the Koch brothers are opposite sides of the same coin. As are the SEIU and telecoms. Nobody is clean on this issue.
Have you ever purchased a firearm? If you do from a licensed dealer or at a gun show you will go through an ATF background check. The problem with the current background check system is government incompetence. Too many recent shooters were supposed to be in NICS(National Instant Criminal Background
Re: Jokes aside I gotta kind of wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a good reason those people weren't on the list. Both ATF and FBI are currently the Democratic operations arm as evidenced by their investigations in both Hillary and Trump. They need to keep the narrative that guns are bad going and the best way of doing that is by sowing fear that someone might use them for evil.
Re: (Score:2)
If the FBI will knowing groom mentally disabled people into carrying out acts of terrorism, like they did with Jeremy Drake Varnell [newsok.com] it also has to be considered if they allow acts to be carried out, or created a situation in which they lost control of.
It is difficult to have faith in congressional oversight, when partisanship is always the ultimate concern.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Racism at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Broadcom is a Singaporean company that decided to pretend to be US company by moving headquarters specifically to help seal this deal.
Also, anti-chinese sentiments are nationalist, not racist. Conflating the two is a rather basic error.
Re:Racism at work (Score:4, Informative)
And before you claim the motivation is nationalist not racist, you should probably check the nationality of the person involved first.
Re: (Score:2)
To be closer to their supply chain. You just made the argument for me. Thank you.
P.S. Conflating state interests based discrimination with discrimination based on race is either ignorant or malicious. I have corrected this error already for the ignorant. This leaves the malicious to mindlessly repeat it. Mindlessly repeating it does not make it any less wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
Broadcom was and has always been a British company. Moving their corporate headquarters first to Singapore then the US is just a shell game and you're falling for it.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The parent company, Avago, was created when Agilent Technologies sold off part of itself to KKR and Silver Lake venture capitalists. When it was formed, the privately held company incorporated in Singapore. When now publicly owned Avago bought Broadcom, the parent company was still incorporated in Singapore. While both Avago and Broadcom had their headquarters in the San Jose, CA area, the owner, Avago, was, and still is, incorporated in Singapore.
Re: Racism at work (Score:1)
Yeah no, that is not what happened. Broadcom (a US-based company) was bought by Avago (a Singapore-based company) who then took the Broadcom name but kept the headquarters in Singapore since it's really still Avago under the covers.
Re: Racism at work (Score:1, Informative)
Yeah no, that is not what happened. Broadcom (a US-based company) was bought by Avago (a Singapore-based company) who then took the Broadcom name but kept the headquarters in Singapore since it's really still Avago under the covers.
No, that isn't what happened either.
Both Broadcom and Avago were 100% American. Avago was NEVER Singaporean.
When Avago took over Broadcom Corp the NEW merged company, Broadcom Ltd, was domiciled in Singapore.
You are an absolute fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Racism and nationalism usually go hand in hand. This is especially true when the leadership of the nationalist movement caters their efforts towards a certain race. The US nationalist movement that Trump supports is specifically a White nationalist movement. There is no confusion about this, unless of course somehow you are just someone that doesn't get the obvious.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
All racists are humans. Therefore all humans are racists. Therefore you are racist and we don't have to listen to you.
Your argument in a nutshell, but with a slightly wider criteria than one you cast. Or you can stop pretending that Trump is a racist, or that this decision has anything to do with race in any way, shape or form. Your choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's past behaviour is clean cut condemnation of racism. As your assumption appears to be built on foundation of the exact opposite, it crumbles all on its own.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you captain obvious.
Racist logic. (Score:2)
Also, anti-chinese sentiments are nationalist, not racist. Conflating the two is a rather basic error.
Its not racism because Chinese is not a race? Seems to be the usual racist logic.
Also it's both. Racial and nationalist. Trying to pretend the two are mutually exclusive is disingenuous at best, but outright lying is a better description.
Also the irony of arguing that it's not one kind of bigotry because it's another, completely related form of bigotry is clearly lost on you. Its the difference between being an arsehole and being an arsehole because one form of irrational bigotry isn't any better than
Re: (Score:2)
As there are no biological races as such in humans there are also no racists.
Are you stupid or just pretend to be on /.?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a supporter of blank slate stupidity, or are you going to play the "race has a scientific definition and therefore common parlance usage does not make it a race" card?
Re: (Score:3)
As I said, this is a very basic error. Repeating it after being corrected on it implies malice rather than ignorance.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Nationalism is discrimination based on nationality. Nationality is something that is granted to you by the nation and can be changed through process known as naturalization.
Racism is discrimination based on race. Race is a characteristic that comes with your genome, and is unchangeable.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
This is the modern far left interpretation, which seeks to expand meaning of racism from inherent traits to actions, and then use it as a weapon to gain power and privilege, as you are trying to do.
It does not make it any less of a malicious lie.
Re: Racism at work (Score:2)
Genome differences are minimal between orangutans and humans too, doesn't make us the same species. Genome differences are also minimal between people with autism, Down syndrome and people susceptible to various cancers, this doesn't make their outcomes in life their choice, upbringing or society's fault.
Re: (Score:2)
It is widely recognized that genome differences are minimal, i.e., all men are effectively equal. In other words, the concept of "race" is not applicable to mankind
And yet, we still somehow manage to segregate ourselves based on our appearance--an attribute most people call race.
The hypocrisy here is that you guys say stuff like this, but then you constantly call out things like "white privilege", "rich white people", or "white girl/guy dance". Race is most definitely a thing. And you are just as susceptible to the tribalism as everyone else. Sadly, you're probably white yourself. You just think that it okay to discriminate as long as it's against your own ra
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how you classify "substantially". If it was truly "substantially" different, people with Down's wouldn't even be anything near human. A single chromosome when each 46 have 3 billion DNA base pairs is a "slight" difference which was my point.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you in all seriousness suggesting that state of Singapore does not have deep links with PRC? In that case, you need to pick up any book on the topic of relations between the two.
But considering the first two words, I don't think you possess the mental faculties for topics more complex then "racist, racist, you're racist. lalalala I can't hear you".
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that programs that are in part designed to keep certain US allies attached to US are also a measure of local ties to China?
Re: (Score:2)
Except I said no such thing. I said that company being Singapourean doesn't mean it isn't tightly connected to China. But good luck with your desperate trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the mountain of evidence you provided for your extreme statement, I think we can dismiss it on the merits you provided.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
yeah can't imagine any reason for anti-Chinese sentiment. You know you can be against the ideals and goals of a foreign power without being discriminatory to people of that power's ethnicity right?
Re: (Score:1)
You do realize Trump killed more Russians in one evening than Obama did in 8 years?
Re: (Score:3)
US forces ripped them to pieces with drone strikes, Apache helicopter gunships, airstrikes from F15E's, capped with a JDAM bombing from passing B52's. I have heard that they also used counterbattery artillery and A10's as well, but haven't seen that confirmed. All of their armored vehicles were destroyed or damaged, hundreds of Russian mercs we
Re: (Score:2)
Is this seriously about the race of the CEO? The US has sunk that far already?
Re: So much for business friendly (Score:3, Insightful)
Mergers like these are good mainly for the executives who plan them and the lawyers and brokers who extract fat fees for executing them. Shareholders see a short-term gain but nothing is added to the economy indeed jobs and choice are diminished.