CEO at Edgy | Fundraising for European Tech Champions at Seed & Series A/B. 🇪🇺🏢💪 Writing here about Startups, Politics, Economy.
Is Kamala the better executive? -possibly. Is Kamala fit for running as US president -based on what credentials exactly? But all of that is not the question here. The real question at hand is: Will a Trump presidency be a *net positive* for the world vs. a Harris presidency? So when you look at the *actual* potential policy outcomes, you can see that on the one hand you have a candidate that is mostly backed by Silicon Valley VCs, and even has a former VC running as his Vice candidate, vowing to leave businesses & startups alone re. taxes, and even make their lives easier going forward. OTOH, you have a candidate that is almost -by party line-bound to work *against* startups' and companies' interests, and therefore *against* the economy and *against* our wellbeing. There is an hour long interview from Ben Horowitz and Marc Andreessen on how they have been struggling with Democratic policy makers, and how some of their intended policy agendas like 'unrealized capital gains tax' are borderline suicidal & would completely destroy the startup-VC ecosystem. Therefore the *net positive* candidate currently is rightfully Trump, even though you might not like his personality or leadership skills-I certainly don't.
Imagine a tech CEO you're considering working for or investing in. You reference check him with his former VP of Marketing who says "unfit to be a CEO, never working with him again". You check with his former VP of Sales who says "should never be a CEO again". Damn, not good but you keep going. His former CTO says "he's borderline incompetent". You check with his former General Counsel who says "no respect for the rule of law, lies all the time, never working with him again". Ok really bad given he hired all these people but you try one more, his former CFO who says "I wouldn't work with him if I were you, he can't be trusted". That guy you're vetting? That's Trump. His former Vice President isn't supporting him and thinks he’s unfit for office. Same with his first Attorney General. And his first Defence Secretary. And his second. And his former head of the Joint Chiefs. Same with his second Chief of Staff. And his third. And his second National Security Advisor. And his third. You'd never work for or invest in a CEO who referenced so badly with so many senior people they chose to hire and worked closely with. Why would you ever vote for someone who does?