zrman

The progressive naïveté is remarkable. You think Cook, Apple and Obama/Clinton can change the hearts and minds of people in this world that would kill gays, outspoken women and Christians 1st? Fools. Chamberlain tried appeasement. Millions dead.

tryd said:

Not at all. They have refused to sponsor a politician that wants people to boycott Apple and to harm Apples business by making it harder for them to compete. They are acting responsible as a company, seeking to optimize  profit for their owners. They are doing exactly what they should do. 

How is it "harmful" to Apple and America to want any US business to manufacture in the United States in support of US jobs? How is it harmful to Apple to support allowing Apple to bring it's cash back into the US at highly reduced tax rates so as to allow Apple to invest in US manufacturing? 

Apple has overstepped it's bounds. Their power, money and influence was earned on the backs of a diverse customer base with no singular political bend. It's investors are equally diverse. Officers of the company, acting on behalf of the company, so overtly in support of a specific party in an election cycle is a detriment to it's core mission of  returning value to shareholders. While the officers of the company have the right to individually support whomever they choose and to support any social agenda they choose.. it is a breach of their responsibility to shareholders to compromise it's customer base and in turn, it's shareholders by using the company's money, power and influence to aid and abet a specific political part.