-
- freeman3
- Adjutant
-
- Posts: 3741
- Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm
26 Sep 2015, 9:25 am
Fiorina is never going to get the nomination. She was at Hewlett-Packard for 6 years. She made a hundred million dollars and during that time the company lost half of it share price and 30,000 workers. She epitomizes what is wrong with corporate compensation, where a person who is horrible at what they do gets a hundred million dollars in 6 years. More pertinent to the race , her only justification for being president is her business expertise and she was a disaster for Hewlett-Packard. As Owen said, Hillary would love it if she were nominated.
mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/opinion/carly-fiorina-really-was-that-bad.html
I think it's going to be Rubio, as much as I dislike him.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
26 Sep 2015, 8:47 pm
bbauska wrote:danivon wrote:freeman3 wrote:Hillary: "it's me or a crazy right-wing guy."
Unless Fiorina gets the nomination. Which I think Hillary would love.
So all the Republican candidates are crazy in your opinion?
It's not a matter of what my opinion is, but how a campaign against them might work. Not that it was even me who suggested the line - just making the PC "or woman" amendment to it
Frankly I think having the ego needed to run for Presidency makes one at least a little borderline though, and it is going to take someone quite "special" to win the Republican race this time around.
-
- Sassenach
- Emissary
-
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am
27 Sep 2015, 2:33 am
They'll go for a conventional candidate in the end. This stage in the electoral cycle always sees the crazies in pole position, but they always fade away.
-
- bbauska
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 7463
- Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm
27 Sep 2015, 7:03 am
danivon wrote:bbauska wrote:danivon wrote:freeman3 wrote:Hillary: "it's me or a crazy right-wing guy."
Unless Fiorina gets the nomination. Which I think Hillary would love.
So all the Republican candidates are crazy in your opinion?
It's not a matter of what my opinion is, but how a campaign against them might work. Not that it was even me who suggested the line - just making the PC "or woman" amendment to it
Frankly I think having the ego needed to run for Presidency makes one at least a little borderline though, and it is going to take someone quite "special" to win the Republican race this time around.
I was, once again, asking your opinion. It is something that is difficult to get on any subject apparently. So you think all presidential candidates are crazy, at least a little borderline?
-
- Ray Jay
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
27 Sep 2015, 10:10 am
Sassenach wrote:They'll go for a conventional candidate in the end. This stage in the electoral cycle always sees the crazies in pole position, but they always fade away.
I used to think that but I'm not so sure anymore. Surveys of disaffection with government are running at all time highs for members of both parties. The question is whether the middle can hold up against the extremes on either side.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
27 Sep 2015, 10:40 am
Ray Jay wrote:Sassenach wrote:They'll go for a conventional candidate in the end. This stage in the electoral cycle always sees the crazies in pole position, but they always fade away.
I used to think that but I'm not so sure anymore. Surveys of disaffection with government are running at all time highs for members of both parties. The question is whether the middle can hold up against the extremes on either side.
Boehner resigning is an indication of that disaffection.
Trump has peaked. The man is just too foolish to stay at the top, politically. Taking a swipe at Rubio was dumb, particularly in the manner in which he did it.
I think it's funny that freeman3 dislikes Rubio so. What did Rubio ever do to him?
In any event, I'm beginning to doubt whether Hillary will even get the nomination. Even Chuck Todd can see through her.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... illary.php The email drip is hurting her approval ratings, which is helping Sanders and Biden. People like Bill--even people who don't want a Democrat in the White House, or people who think he's a womanizer, or people who think he lied under oath. He's the likable cad.
She's just not that.
Her opponents: people like Sanders' policies and Biden's personality. They don't believe Hillary.
I'm not sure she can disqualify the others enough to win.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
27 Sep 2015, 10:49 am
And, it's not that there's a "smoking gun" (yet) in the emails. It's that they show she consistently misrepresented the truth.
For example:Clinton aides have said she began using her personal email in March 2009. State Department officials say they now have an email thread with messages from that account by Jan. 28, 2009 — leaving an open question about what else is out there. The Clinton campaign has yet to comment, and State has no plans to ask for more records.
A previously undisclosed email chain, provided this week to the State Department, presents an apparent contradiction to Hillary Clinton’s account of when she began using a personal email address as secretary of state — and raises questions about whether other records could be missing from the ones she already provided.
Since March, when the personal account came to light, Clinton and her aides have outlined the same sequence of events surrounding her email setup: At the start of 2009, when she became secretary of state, Clinton continued to email for about two months from the same AT&T BlackBerry address she used in her previous role as U.S. senator. Then, on March 18, 2009, she started using the personal address,
hdr22@clintonemail.com, which she maintained until the end of her term.
The cache of email records that Clinton sent the State Department late last year, totaling 55,000 pages, begin on March 18, 2009, with the emails from the
hdr22@clintonemail.com address. (Clinton, her aides have said, no longer has access to two months of messages from the AT&T BlackBerry account.)
But this week, as first reported by the Associated Press on Friday, State Department officials were provided copies of an email chain showing that Clinton used her
hdr22@clintonemail.com account as early as Jan. 28, 2009.
So, what's the big deal?
First of all, again, she didn't tell the truth.
Secondly, she continued to use an unsecured device. Please, tell me: would the US target high-ranking officials of China or Russia if they used an unsecured email device? If the answer is "yes," (which it is), wouldn't China and Russia like to hack into Hillary's email when she was Secretary of State?
Thirdly, what should a voter make of someone who thinks their personal privacy trumps national security when they're in a national security position?
I would not be surprised to see Hillary get swamped by Biden, particularly if he promises to be a one-term President and hints of a run with Senator Warren as his VP.
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
27 Sep 2015, 12:28 pm
Bill Clinton on email scrutiny: 'I've never seen so much expended on so little
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/25/politics/ ... interview/Bill has it about right.
His interview with Zakkaria about says it all.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
28 Sep 2015, 8:29 am
Really? What part of it "says it all?"
The part where Bill admits Hillary's been lying?
She lied about wanting only one device.
She lied about nearly everything to do with her private email server.
He lied about who is doing what. The NYT and the WaPo have been investigating. This is not a GOP-led witch hunt.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
28 Sep 2015, 1:24 pm
duplicate post
Last edited by
danivon on 28 Sep 2015, 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
28 Sep 2015, 1:29 pm
bbauska wrote:I was, once again, asking your opinion. It is something that is difficult to get on any subject apparently.
You were asking with a question begged. As ever. I don't mind being asked questions, but I don't feel obligated to answer them all, especially if they seem leading.
So you think all presidential candidates are crazy, at least a little borderline?
I think all active politicians* have to have some kind of mental flaw to go through with it. A massive ego, a saviour/martyr complex, psychopathy, take your pick.
When it comes to the dozen or so vying for the GOP nomination, my personal view is that a good half of them are kooks. Including the front runner. And the two leading the chase.
*
I was an active politicianLast edited by
danivon on 28 Sep 2015, 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Sassenach
- Emissary
-
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am
28 Sep 2015, 1:32 pm
There's probably something to that, especially when you consider that many of them have to take a big drop in salary in order to enter politics. You have to wonder why they bother.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
28 Sep 2015, 1:44 pm
Sassenach wrote:There's probably something to that, especially when you consider that many of them have to take a big drop in salary in order to enter politics. You have to wonder why they bother.
Well, a lot of them can get a massive hike in salary
after leaving politics, and they may be able to make more on the side as well in the meantime.
And of course not everyone is motivated by money. For many, once you have enough, other things take over as motivators (see Maslow's heirarchy of needs). In fact, I'd say being motivated by accruing money when you already have more than you need to live well is itself a bit mentally dubious. It's like an odd kind of stamp collecting after a point, isn't it?
But the main thing I meant was that it takes something to put yourself out there, to speak out publicly for what you believe not just to promote it, but to promote yourself as the exponent of it. And you have to know that it means being open to attack from the reasonable, the unreasonable and the outright bonkers.
-
- Sassenach
- Emissary
-
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am
28 Sep 2015, 2:03 pm
Sure, but it's not necessarily a case of millionaires deciding that they have enough money so much as well paid professionals earning 100K+ choosing to take a 40% pay cut to go into a career with precarious job security and subject themselves to constant abuse. They're also moving into a job with very long hours which puts a strain on their family life. My point is that normal, well-adjusted people are less likely to want to put themselves and their families through that.
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
29 Sep 2015, 8:47 am
People can go into politics with a desire to serve. With a desire to affect positive change.
Same reason that people go into Doctors Without Borders or other service jobs.
Its not just about money, or security, or fame.
The one thing about political life is that it is often more about performance and the need for a positive response from the crowd. Which is why I think politicians psyches are perhaps more like musicians or actors. Especially on the campaign trail.
Which reminds me of the end of the movie The Candidate where, Robert Redford having won, looks at his campaign manager and asks "Now what?"
