2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika

Wompa1 wrote: »

What does HP have to do with the Tech bubble bursting? :pac:

HP became the largest Tech company in the world after the bubble burst but that was down to the strategy taken and applied by Mark Hurd. Who also had massive lay offs during his tenure. But what could at least be said for Mr. Hurd is that he surrounded himself with some good people and was better equipped to lead a Tech company. He made some smart acquisitions which diversified the company and gave them more of Enterprise Services slant.

Then Leo Apoetheker replaced Hurd after he was busted flying his mistress around on the Corporate jet. Leo had the right idea but his execution was terrible. He was more cloud and software focused. A great move but he did a fire sale of some of their Smartphone and cut off WebOS which was just purchased and was seen as a great buy. He got canned very quickly. He also made a really bad purchase and paid over the odds for a company in Autonomy...he was Carly, only he actually did have a direction to go in...he just did it too wildly for the shareholders.

Now they have Meg Whitman another person with no technical prowess at all. She's a business woman who has sat on the boards of other companies. She's killing HP. They are in really bad shape. She seems to now be swinging for the fences..pushing for the research teams to start churning out innovative products that are unique..it could work out but it's a big gamble...they are still a huge company. They should be aligning themselves with key partners and acquiring promising companies for growth.

I think you're wrong on your timeline. The tech bubble burst a few months after she took the HP job in 1999. And most big tech companies were still hurting from the 2000 dot-com implosion and the 2001 recession as late as 2005. And Cisco, IBM, and Dell gave out a pretty big share of their own pink slips too at the time, you might recall.

Overheal

I just don't think they need to be commenting on these CMP videos, they are hardly evidence.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

I just don't think they need to be commenting on these CMP videos, they are hardly evidence.

And an opinion on the matter is fine... but opinion doesn't constitute an accusation and summary judgement that Fironia was lying.

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

In my opinion, Fiornia should have used the story, in the debate, that she told at a Susan B. Anthony dinner this year when arguing that it is the Democrats, not Republicans, who are “extreme” when it comes to abortion.

Well, of course you do, because you think CF walks on water, and you have an odd idea of where the political "centre" lies -- yes, even in the US. But more importantly, CF can't actually argue this way, because she doesn't have a moderate position on abortion by any stretch of the imagination... and because she's running in the Republican primary, so she couldn't afford to have one if she wanted to (as apparently she used to -- another in the fine tradition of GOP presidential candidate flip-floppers).

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

No, I don't.

Well, that was informative! Then clearly you're quite wrong: citizens of a sovereign state are by no stretch "equivalent to" shareholders in a limited company.

Amerika wrote: »

You seem to have left something off of my post you quoted... And failed to read a subsequent post on the matter. It's okay, though, all is forgiven.

I "left off something" because it went off at a complete tangent. I'm not clear which of your subsequent posts you're referring to: none of them were "on the matter" by any objective assessment. (Unions bad, megacorps good, that seemed to be the general mood music.)

What, pray tell, makes one "qualified" to be president, and what do these supposed desiderata have to do with the constitutional requirement? Because if it's "nothing", one wonders why you raise that as an issue -- merely to dismiss it -- in the post I replied to.

Amerika

alaimacerc wrote: »

Well, that was informative! Then clearly you're quite wrong: citizens of a sovereign state are by no stretch "equivalent to" shareholders in a limited company.

Who does the CEO of a company represent... the interests of the Stockholders. Who does the POTUS represent... the interests of We The People.

I "left off something" because it went off at a complete tangent. I'm not clear which of your subsequent posts you're referring to: none of them were "on the matter" by any objective assessment. (Unions bad, megacorps good, that seemed to be the general mood music.)

What, pray tell, makes one "qualified" to be president, and what do these supposed desiderata have to do with the constitutional requirement? Because if it's "nothing", one wonders why you raise that as an issue -- merely to dismiss it -- in the post I replied to.

The President
The President is both the head of state and head of government of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments — each led by an appointed member of the President's Cabinet — carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. They are joined in this by other executive agencies such as the CIA and Environmental Protection Agency, the heads of which are not part of the Cabinet, but who are under the full authority of the President. The President also appoints the heads of more than 50 independent federal commissions, such as the Federal Reserve Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as federal judges, ambassadors, and other federal offices. The Executive Office of the President (EOP) consists of the immediate staff to the President, along with entities such as the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

The President has the power either to sign legislation into law or to veto bills enacted by Congress, although Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds vote of both houses. The Executive Branch conducts diplomacy with other nations, and the President has the power to negotiate and sign treaties, which also must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The President can issue executive orders, which direct executive officers or clarify and further existing laws. The President also has unlimited power to extend pardons and clemencies for federal crimes, except in cases of impeachment.

With these powers come several responsibilities, among them a constitutional requirement to "from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." Although the President may fulfill this requirement in any way he or she chooses, Presidents have traditionally given a State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress each January (except in inaugural years) outlining their agenda for the coming year.

The Constitution lists only three qualifications for the Presidency — the President must be 35 years of age, be a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years. And though millions of Americans vote in a presidential election every four years, the President is not, in fact, directly elected by the people. Instead, on the first Tuesday in November of every fourth year, the people elect the members of the Electoral College. Apportioned by population to the 50 states — one for each member of their congressional delegation (with the District of Columbia receiving 3 votes) — these Electors then cast the votes for President. There are currently 538 electors in the Electoral College.

It’s rather simple... Carly Fiorina is constitutionally eligible to become President, and her executive experience lends well to the Executive Branch of the US Government.

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

Who does the CEO of a company represent... the interests of the Stockholders. Who does the POTUS represent... the interests of We The People.

So, as I said:

alaimacerc wrote: »

By "equivalent to" you appear to mean "weakly and polemically analogous with".

You may wish to double-check your understanding of the concepts of "equivalent" and "analogy", before we expend too much further effort in belabouring just how few and weak the points of polemic similarity are, and how many and compelling the points of difference are.

It’s rather simple... Carly Fiorina is constitutionally eligible to become President, and her executive experience lends well to the Executive Branch of the US Government.

As I also said, the "constitutional" issue was raised entirely by you -- and merely so you could dismiss it. The idea that being a failed CEO "lends well" to running a country seems to arise purely from how pleased you are about the word "executive" appearing in both clauses. Or maybe over-excitement about Trump's running in the primaries.

"We should run the country like a business" is a common enough rhetorical trope in right-wing populism, but not even they have too much enthusiasm for the concept in practice. Berlusconi and Ganley nothwithstanding.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

And an opinion on the matter is fine... but opinion doesn't constitute an accusation and summary judgement that Fironia was lying.

Politifact acknowledged as much..

Fiorina said one of the Planned Parenthood videos shows "a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain."
One of the Center for Medical Progress’ videos attacking Planned Parenthood shows an interview with a woman identified as a former tissue procurement technician, who tells about an experience in a Planned Parenthood pathology lab where she sees a fetus outside the womb with its heart still beating. According to the woman, her supervisor said they would procure the fetus’ brain. The video’s creators added footage of an aborted fetus on what appears to be an examination table, and its legs are moving. But Fiorina makes it sound as if the footage shows what Planned Parenthood is alleged to have done. In fact, the stock footage was added to the video to dramatize its content. We rate her statement Mostly False.

PopePalpatine

Overheal wrote: »

Politifact acknowledged as much..

B-b-but Fox News & Breitbart say they're cultural Marxists trying to tear down 'Murica!

Overheal

Politifact?? I've actually heard they're more right-leaning than anything else. They have ran the Obamameter since his election. Even tore Jon Stewart a new asshole a few times (but said nice things when he left (opinion article). tbf he earned it).

Perhaps Breitbart is just upset they now feature on their somewhat newer site, Punditfact, and both outcomes are pants on fire

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/breitbart/

Which reminds me, Oliver has been keeping his word when it comes to fact-checking (easy to do 30 mins a week), everything he said was either completely true, based on the best information available, or more of an opinion http://www.politifact.com/personalities/john-oliver/

Magnate

Overheal wrote: »

Politifact?? I've actually heard they're more right-leaning than anything else. They have ran the Obamameter since his election.

Right leaning?? Have you seen Trump's profile?



Even with Jeb they're not afraid to call him out when he's wrong. Coupled with the fact that they don't even have a meter on Sanders, I don't think right leaning is a fair assessment.

alaimacerc

Magnate wrote: »

Right leaning?? Have you seen Trump's profile?

That's a classic example of a data set badly in need of a control sample, surely. "Right-leaning" hardly precludes "critical of Trump". Indeed, it somewhat implies it, if one is "right-leaning but has some regard for the facts", "right-leaning but not a fan of unpleasant, blustering populist demagogues", or simply "right-leaning but want a candidate that's not a massive embarrassment and electoral liability".

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Politifact acknowledged as much..

Any yet they rate it as Mostly False? I believe this demonstrates their bias when you look at what she actually said.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Any yet they rate it as Mostly False? I believe this demonstrates their bias when you look at what she actually said.

Her claim was still based on erroneous information. Similar to when Jon Stewart cited the History Channel (which itself provided false information) and a claim from John Oliver which was only claimed to be mostly true because the data needed to empirically confirm the claim doesn't exactly exist.

Just because they may be a bit conservative does not mean they are going to jeopardize the ethos of a fact-checking website to protect people they may favor.

KingBrian2

Wompa1 wrote: »

He apparently spoke with Union heads for police, firefighters etc. to gauge their interest in supporting him. Over the weekend the Firefighters announced they were no longer endorsing Hillary.

The first Democrat debate is coming up. I'm guessing he's jump in after the first couple. He's not the strongest public speaker from what I've seen. More of a fun guy than a serious guy...

Hillary Clinton may yet become the first female president of the United States. A milestone in American politics, should she succeed how exactly as the first women president can she possible shake hands with the likes of the King of Saudi Arabia who's country has a despicable regime far worse than most concerning practically every issue? It would be repugnant to her values and the world as a whole.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Her claim was still based on erroneous information. Similar to when Jon Stewart cited the History Channel (which itself provided false information) and a claim from John Oliver which was only claimed to be mostly true because the data needed to empirically confirm the claim doesn't exactly exist.

Just because they may be a bit conservative does not mean they are going to jeopardize the ethos of a fact-checking website to protect people they may favor.

Did she accurately describe the video she saw, or did she not?

(and no 'yabuts' allowed )

Black Swan

More national telly news media talk about Biden and his possible late entry into the Dem primary race for president 2016. If he does, will Elizabeth Warren change her mind about running, and if so, will she run as Biden's VP? Methinks Warren would steal most of the votes from Sanders, and Biden would take many of the votes from Hillary, perhaps placing Biden-Warren as front runner in the polls by year end. But who knows? It's a year before November 2016 elections.

The Randy Riverbeast

It's only mostly false, like claiming the moon is a big round ball of cheese.

As long as she is only mostly false it's ok. Completely false and then...well obama said something false so it's ok as well.

Wompa1

Black Swan wrote: »

More national telly news media talk about Biden and his possible late entry into the Dem primary race for president 2016. If he does, will Elizabeth Warren change her mind about running, and if so, will she run as Biden's VP? Methinks Warren would steal most of the votes from Sanders, and Biden would take many of the votes from Hillary, perhaps placing Biden-Warren as front runner in the polls by year end. But who knows? It's a year before November 2016 elections.

There's meant to be some ad playing on TV in support of Biden by some backers.

I really like Warren but there's one key issue that I disagree with her on and that's the Middle East. She seems to be along the lines of "we must do whatever necessary for Israel"...I'm tired of that. Maybe she was saying it to keep herself popular since it's the popular view but Sanders, a Jew himself is less cavalier about it. Bernie all the way!

Black Swan

Wompa1 wrote: »

There's meant to be some ad playing on TV in support of Biden by some backers.

Hillary in a talk show made a comment yesterday about Biden, which showed her worry that he might run.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Did she accurately describe the video she saw, or did she not?

(and no 'yabuts' allowed )

She accurately exhibited a lack of critical thinking, yes.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Hillary Clinton may yet become the first female president of the United States. A milestone in American politics, should she succeed how exactly as the first women president can she possible shake hands with the likes of the King of Saudi Arabia who's country has a despicable regime far worse than most concerning practically every issue? It would be repugnant to her values and the world as a whole.

I genuinely hope that we avoid trying to push for presidents based on a minority success (first black president, first woman president, first jewish president)

ECO_Mental

You forgot one other minority that are put down and that are billionaires....

Sure god love them they get unfairly taxed and never get a break. Good job we have someone running that is going to look after their interests. Hope he gets elected, they then can have a voice and be heard.

It's all those Mexicans, blacks and gays they get everything:(

Brian?

Overheal wrote: »

I genuinely hope that we avoid trying to push for presidents based on a minority success (first black president, first woman president, first jewish president)

I'm going to be pedantic here, women aren't a minority. There's more women in the world than men.

But you're right, the gender, ethnic background or creed of a candidate shouldn't matter. The most qualified candidate should win, i.e. Joe Biden.

Overheal

theyre a minority in politics/civil service.

Brian?

Overheal wrote: »

theyre a minority in politics/civil service.

True.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

The most qualified candidate should win, i.e. Joe Biden.

That's an odd way of spelling Jeb Bush.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

That's an odd way of spelling Jeb Bush.

Of the current candidates Jeb is actually the most qualified IMO. I disagree with him ideologically but at least he has governed a state.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Of the current candidates Jeb is actually the most qualified IMO. I disagree with him ideologically but at least he has governed a state.

Probably the first time we've agreed on anything. And the end of the world was supposed to have happened yesterday. :pac:

DEFTLEFTHAND

Just a quick question for the majority Democrat supporters on this thread? If you had to choose somebody from the current GOP cans to be President, who would it be and why?