3 numbers that define the Fiorina era at HP
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And I would never throw my vote away on a third party candidate that is simply foolish.
[/quote]
I agree 10,000,000,000%.
My thoughts.
Trump: Came off looking completely out of place in the second half of the debate. He makes a lot of noise, but there is no substance.
Jeb: Did a good job memorizing his lines. Seemed so full of shit his eyes are brown.
Carson: A little shaky at first, but he managed to get some points across; his tax plan and so on. Much of his talking points were word for word what he said in an interview two days earlier.
Cruz: On point as usually, but was asked minimal questions.
Rand: Too much common sense coming out of his mouth for the average television audience. Kind of came off as a dick at first, but settled down and made Christie look foolish.
Walker: Very succinct, and well spoken. Seemed like he was trying to introduce himself to the low information crowd.
Rubio: He was really glad nobody mention the Gang of 8. Not bad, but seemed like a child eating at the big boy table for the first time.
Kasich: Nobody cares about your father being a mailman. Did a good job speaking. Missed the point completely on the gay marriage supreme court case.
Christie: Needs to go away. Has to stand on the backs of 9/11 victims to attempt a debate with Rand Paul about NSA spying.
Huckabee: Wow. He did really well. Great speaker, to the point. Gained the most points in my book from his performance.
Would be nice to see Christie, Trump, and Kasich go away and bring Jindal and Fiorina up the the majors for the next debate.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is/are there any combination/s of Republican and/or Democrat candidates that will keep you(anyone) home on Election Day? (This can be either a particular combination of candidates from your own party, or combinations from both parties…or, perhaps, your party could run the candidates that would normally keep you home, but there is a combination of candidates from the opposing party that is too sinister to not vote against.) Is there a combination that would force you to vote for a third-party so that your “voice is heard,” in spite of the fact that you realize the third-party does not have a realistic shot at winning?[/quote]
Will not vote for any Democrat.
Will not vote for Jeb, Christie,or Trump.
I won’t stay home on election day, but I will leave the presidential column blank.
[quote]OldOgre wrote:
Despite Kasich being a bore and my wife’s warnings about Jeb Bush’s wife, I think a Bush/Kasich ticket is the best chance to win. I think they lock down Ohio and Florida. If they can do that, I think the conservative base is so stirred up everywhere else over gay marriage, immigration and ISIS that they will turn out to vote in the GE, especially if Hillary is on the ticket on the other side.
[/quote]
I think this is spot on. As much as I hate the idea of another Bush in the WH (through no fault of Jeb’s, I simply hate the idea of political dynasties eg: Kennedys, Daleys, Rockefellers, Roosevelts, etc) I think the combination of FL and OH will make the GOP tough to beat.
And Treco is spot on. Fiorina is a non-starter. As a CEO she was a disaster. The day she resigned, HP stock jumped %7 adding $3B in market cap. HP rank and file openly celebrated, singing, “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead”.
Why not a Carson/Fiorina ticket? Who could Democrats nominate that could oppose that? Hillary and Michelle? Vote against Carson/Fiorina and you’re a racist, sexist, or both. Do the Democrats have a black candidate to run alongside Hillary? As far as I know, there’s no (Vice) President Camacho on the horizon, so Republicans should be able to claim all of America’s feels with that ticket(in addition to neither Republican being terrible).
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Why not a Carson/Fiorina ticket? Who could Democrats nominate that could oppose that? Hillary and Michelle? Vote against Carson/Fiorina and you’re a racist, sexist, or both. Do the Democrats have a black candidate to run alongside Hillary? As far as I know, there’s no (Vice) President Camacho on the horizon, so Republicans should be able to claim all of America’s feels with that ticket.
President Camacho-The Election - YouTube [/quote]
No, that would be the Jesse Ventura/Hulk Hogan ticket.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is/are there any combination/s of Republican and/or Democrat candidates that will keep you(anyone) home on Election Day? (This can be either a particular combination of candidates from your own party, or combinations from both parties…or, perhaps, your party could run the candidates that would normally keep you home, but there is a combination of candidates from the opposing party that is too sinister to not vote against.) Is there a combination that would force you to vote for a third-party so that your “voice is heard,” in spite of the fact that you realize the third-party does not have a realistic shot at winning?[/quote]
I would not be enthusiastic about a Trump/_____ ticket… I would potentially vote third party (assuming a good option existed) or not at all if Trump was the nominee. That’s probably true for Christie as well; although, I don’t feel as strongly about him. [/quote]
The dems would be enthusiastic about a Trump ticket.[/quote]
I know it’s silly tin foil hat stuff, but I would not be surprised if Trump is running specifically to help Hillary win. [/quote]
Carly said something about Trump getting a call from Bill Clinton shortly before he announced his candidacy. If there’s any truth to that, then it’s not out of the question that he is, quite literally, her “trump” card. Trump is a buffoon, yes, but what is he saying? Everything that a vast swath of the right is thinking? Or at least, everything that the left perceives that the right is thinking? His purpose in this campaign, as I see it, is to portray the entire right as the kind of jingoistic, racist boobs that, admittedly, many on the fringe are.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
No, that would be the Jesse Ventura/Hulk Hogan ticket.[/quote]
You’re thinking beyond skin color/sex, and what percentage of the electorate is capable of that?
The debate more or less lived up to my expectations. Walker and Huckabee were the only ones that surpassed them. I may need to read up more on Walker, he seemed to have a very good debate and I have not followed him closely. Huckabee impressed me eight years ago as well. He’s a good speaker but lacks principles. I discounted him as I don’t like him, but forgot how good of a politician he can be.
Cruz continues to impress. Some have accused him of being too rehearsed, but the truth is he is so extremely intelligent and so good of a speaker that these debates come very naturally to him.
Kucarich is a VP candidate. I don’t like him, but Ohio does and that’s more than enough to be vp.
Rand Paul is trying to hard. He is moving away from his roots and trying too hard to appease voters. I rather lose with an ideological than with Paul backtracking on his true beliefs.
I don’t want to comment on Trump but feel that I have to. He’s a sideshow.
Ben Carson has a lot of positive attributes, but has to learn how to be assertive in a political climate. I hate to put too much emphasis on experience, but Ben needs some.
I would vote for Rubio and I’m afraid he may be the GOP’s best chance. He’s 3rd or 4th on my list, but I like him enough that I could vote for him and I haven’t voted for the GOP sine 2004.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Why not a Carson/Fiorina ticket? Who could Democrats nominate that could oppose that? Hillary and Michelle? Vote against Carson/Fiorina and you’re a racist, sexist, or both. Do the Democrats have a black candidate to run alongside Hillary? As far as I know, there’s no (Vice) President Camacho on the horizon, so Republicans should be able to claim all of America’s feels with that ticket(in addition to neither Republican being terrible).
[/quote]
Obviously you don’t understand liberal logic. If your a liberal/democrat nothing you do is sexist or racist, simply because part of those definitions include being conservative/republican.
I can not believe The Republican Party or the Democrat Party can capture so many people’s opinion so perfectly , eye roll . Trump is the only one that got it right , fuck the Republican Party and the democrats too , loyalty should be to America and this whole notion that the Republicans are more conservative than the democrats is ludicrous . Some one has taken the term Theocrat and exchanged that along with war mongering, pro wealth, anti poor to mean “CONSERVATIVE” conserve is the base word
con·serve
verb
verb: conserve; 3rd person present: conserves; past tense: conserved; past participle: conserved; gerund or present participle: conserving
kənˈsərv/
1.
protect (something, especially an environmentally or culturally important place or thing) from harm or destruction.
"the funds raised will help conserve endangered meadowlands"
prevent the wasteful or harmful overuse of (a resource).
"industry should conserve more water"
synonyms: preserve, protect, save, safeguard, keep, look after; More
sustain, prolong, perpetuate;
store, reserve, husband
"fossil fuel should be conserved"
antonyms: squander
Physics
maintain (a quantity such as energy or mass) at a constant overall total.
Biochemistry
retain (a particular amino acid, nucleotide, or sequence of these) unchanged in different protein or DNA molecules.
preserve (food, typically fruit) with sugar.
noun
noun: conserve; plural noun: conserves
ˈkänˌsərv,kənˈsərv/
1.
a sweet food made by preserving fruit with sugar; jam.
synonyms: jam, preserve, jelly, marmalade
"cherry conserve"
then you add the suffix ative such as
Acetylative
Adumbrative
Adversative
Affirmative
Affricative
Aggregative
Alternative
Appellative
Applicative
Arbitrative
Associative
Assortative
Carminative
Circulative
Colligative
Combinative
Commutative
Comparative
Confutative
Connotative
Cooperative
Corporative
Correlative
Declarative
Deformative
Degradative
Delineative
Denigrative
Desiccative
Designative
Devastative
It does not change the definition just because the Republicans or the Democrats say it does
Conserve in the political realm is a fiscal term , nothing more , I know:) fuck you anyhow
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I can not believe The Republican Party or the Democrat Party can capture so many people’s opinion so perfectly , eye roll . Trump is the only one that got it right , fuck the Republican Party and the democrats too , loyalty should be to America and this whole notion that the Republicans are more conservative than the democrats is ludicrous . Some one has taken the term Theocrat and exchanged that along with war mongering, pro wealth, anti poor to mean “CONSERVATIVE” conserve is the base word
con�??�?�·serve
verb
verb: conserve; 3rd person present: conserves; past tense: conserved; past participle: conserved; gerund or present participle: conserving
kənˈsərv/
1.
protect (something, especially an environmentally or culturally important place or thing) from harm or destruction.
"the funds raised will help conserve endangered meadowlands"
prevent the wasteful or harmful overuse of (a resource).
"industry should conserve more water"
synonyms: preserve, protect, save, safeguard, keep, look after; More
sustain, prolong, perpetuate;
store, reserve, husband
"fossil fuel should be conserved"
antonyms: squander
Physics
maintain (a quantity such as energy or mass) at a constant overall total.
Biochemistry
retain (a particular amino acid, nucleotide, or sequence of these) unchanged in different protein or DNA molecules.
preserve (food, typically fruit) with sugar.
noun
noun: conserve; plural noun: conserves
ˈkÃ???Ã??Ã?¤nˌsərv,kənˈsərv/
1.
a sweet food made by preserving fruit with sugar; jam.
synonyms: jam, preserve, jelly, marmalade
"cherry conserve"
then you add the suffix ative such as
Acetylative
Adumbrative
Adversative
Affirmative
Affricative
Aggregative
Alternative
Appellative
Applicative
Arbitrative
Associative
Assortative
Carminative
Circulative
Colligative
Combinative
Commutative
Comparative
Confutative
Connotative
Cooperative
Corporative
Correlative
Declarative
Deformative
Degradative
Delineative
Denigrative
Desiccative
Designative
Devastative
It does not change the definition just because the Republicans or the Democrats say it does
Conserve in the political realm is a fiscal term , nothing more , I know:) fuck you anyhow
[/quote]
No, “conservative,” in the political realm(in today’s USA), means something like, “One who wishes to keep things as they are, or perhaps as they were under the last Republican in the position in question.” “Liberal,” politically(in today’s USA), means, “One who wants to ensure that the government continues growing during the next term.” “Third party voter”(in today’s USA) means, “One who does not agree with the direction in which the country is headed but wants to give his stamp of approval to the process that has taken it there anyway.” There is talk of mandating voting. Now that suffrage is so widespread that it has no value, tell me which strategy is most effective.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is/are there any combination/s of Republican and/or Democrat candidates that will keep you(anyone) home on Election Day? (This can be either a particular combination of candidates from your own party, or combinations from both parties…or, perhaps, your party could run the candidates that would normally keep you home, but there is a combination of candidates from the opposing party that is too sinister to not vote against.) Is there a combination that would force you to vote for a third-party so that your “voice is heard,” in spite of the fact that you realize the third-party does not have a realistic shot at winning?[/quote]
Will not vote for any Democrat.
Will not vote for Jeb, Christie,or Trump.
I won’t stay home on election day, but I will leave the presidential column blank. [/quote]
When you think about it that’s really all Hillary wants you to do.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is/are there any combination/s of Republican and/or Democrat candidates that will keep you(anyone) home on Election Day? (This can be either a particular combination of candidates from your own party, or combinations from both parties…or, perhaps, your party could run the candidates that would normally keep you home, but there is a combination of candidates from the opposing party that is too sinister to not vote against.) Is there a combination that would force you to vote for a third-party so that your “voice is heard,” in spite of the fact that you realize the third-party does not have a realistic shot at winning?[/quote]
I would not be enthusiastic about a Trump/_____ ticket… I would potentially vote third party (assuming a good option existed) or not at all if Trump was the nominee. That’s probably true for Christie as well; although, I don’t feel as strongly about him. [/quote]
The dems would be enthusiastic about a Trump ticket.[/quote]
I know it’s silly tin foil hat stuff, but I would not be surprised if Trump is running specifically to help Hillary win. [/quote]
Carly said something about Trump getting a call from Bill Clinton shortly before he announced his candidacy. If there’s any truth to that, then it’s not out of the question that he is, quite literally, her “trump” card. Trump is a buffoon, yes, but what is he saying? Everything that a vast swath of the right is thinking? Or at least, everything that the left perceives that the right is thinking? His purpose in this campaign, as I see it, is to portray the entire right as the kind of jingoistic, racist boobs that, admittedly, many on the fringe are.
[/quote]
But what does Trump get out of playing the spoiler? Until someone explains that one to me I will continue to think that with Trump’s giant ego he thinks he can win.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is/are there any combination/s of Republican and/or Democrat candidates that will keep you(anyone) home on Election Day? (This can be either a particular combination of candidates from your own party, or combinations from both parties…or, perhaps, your party could run the candidates that would normally keep you home, but there is a combination of candidates from the opposing party that is too sinister to not vote against.) Is there a combination that would force you to vote for a third-party so that your “voice is heard,” in spite of the fact that you realize the third-party does not have a realistic shot at winning?[/quote]
I would not be enthusiastic about a Trump/_____ ticket… I would potentially vote third party (assuming a good option existed) or not at all if Trump was the nominee. That’s probably true for Christie as well; although, I don’t feel as strongly about him. [/quote]
The dems would be enthusiastic about a Trump ticket.[/quote]
I know it’s silly tin foil hat stuff, but I would not be surprised if Trump is running specifically to help Hillary win. [/quote]
Carly said something about Trump getting a call from Bill Clinton shortly before he announced his candidacy. If there’s any truth to that, then it’s not out of the question that he is, quite literally, her “trump” card. Trump is a buffoon, yes, but what is he saying? Everything that a vast swath of the right is thinking? Or at least, everything that the left perceives that the right is thinking? His purpose in this campaign, as I see it, is to portray the entire right as the kind of jingoistic, racist boobs that, admittedly, many on the fringe are.
[/quote]
But what does Trump get out of playing the spoiler? Until someone explains that one to me I will continue to think that with Trump’s giant ego he thinks he can win.
[/quote]
I think Trump is bored. He made plenty of money, married a model, it’s hard to massage the ego of a narcissist after doing both of those. I also think Trump doesn’t care about the damage he might create during his thrill-seeking.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
But what does Trump get out of playing the spoiler? Until someone explains that one to me I will continue to think that with Trump’s giant ego he thinks he can win.
[/quote]
I think any benefit he gets is solely as a salve to his ego.
As an aside, over the last couple days I’ve started to believe that the GOP could win this election, though Trump’s ascendancy certainly doesn’t help things but his candidacy is dead-in-the-water. I don’t believe the party faithful - which is who votes in the primaries - will risk losing this election by nominating Trump.
That being said, the one scenario that concerns me is Trump deciding to run as an independent a la Ross Perot. I think, like Perot, he could siphon off a significant amount of center/Right voters who otherwise would have voted for the GOP in the General Election.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
But what does Trump get out of playing the spoiler? Until someone explains that one to me I will continue to think that with Trump’s giant ego he thinks he can win.
[/quote]
I think any benefit he gets is solely as a salve to his ego.
As an aside, over the last couple days I’ve started to believe that the GOP could win this election, though Trump’s ascendancy certainly doesn’t help things but his candidacy is dead-in-the-water. I don’t believe the party faithful - which is who votes in the primaries - will risk losing this election by nominating Trump.
That being said, the one scenario that concerns me is Trump deciding to run as an independent a la Ross Perot. I think, like Perot, he could siphon off a significant amount of center/Right voters who otherwise would have voted for the GOP in the General Election.
[/quote]
That’s certainly a concern but I don’t feel Trump will run an independent candidacy for several reasons:
Organizing a credible 3rd party candidacy is a much larger feat than most people think. You have to independently get on the ballot in each state, which I believe takes many, many signatures by registered voters. This means that he needs to hire a very large army of workers to carry petitions etc. That means spending lots of money before he even runs one ad. It also means having an organization which can actually pull it off. Easier said than done.
A guy by the name of Ross Perot ran a credible third party candidacy back in 1992 and again in 1996 (although 92’ was far more credible). He kept George H.W. Bush from getting reelected in 92’. He also spent about 1 billion dollars in that losing effort and that was about 20 years ago.
Today Trump would have to spend very near 3 billion for his candidacy to actually have enough pull to effect the outcome. From what I’ve read about his wealth he does not have that kind of cash flow to pull it off. Yes he’s allegedly worth 10 billion dollars (actually, I don’t believe that to be an accurate number, it is highly inflated. But by the time the accountants can figure out the 93 page document the election will be over. Forbes had him closer to 4 billion). But, those billions are tied up in real estate. Real estate that cannot be easily sold for full value for him to be liquid enough to spend that kind of money. Ross Perot had just sold his company to General Motors for 2.4 billion in cash in the mid 1980’s. There is a big difference between net worth and actually being cash rich.
Finally, there is no other way to put it, Trump likes money! I don’t think for a second, even if he wanted to be the guy to help elect Hillary Clinton to the Presidency (and who wants that reputation), that he would spend almost 2-3 billion dollars of his own money, even if he had the cash to spend.
Yes, he could do the independent candidacy in a down and dirty write in fashion, but where would that get him? He’s Trump and if he doesn’t do it right he will be a laughing stock. He would not take enough voters away from the republican nominee to make a difference.
In short I feel Trump is running a bluff against the republican national committee in order to get special favors.
We will certainly find out very soon but I predict there will be no Trump independent candidacy. And if the republicans are smart they will assure it buy treating the big mouth with respect by asking for his input.
One final factor, I strongly believe that by the time the election rolls around Trump will be even less popular than Hillary Clinton. In other words, his negatives will be higher than the Trump Plaza! And if I am correct there is no amount of money that will help him play the role of spoiler in the 2016 Presidential election.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
And Treco is spot on. Fiorina is a non-starter. As a CEO she was a disaster. The day she resigned, HP stock jumped %7 adding $3B in market cap. HP rank and file openly celebrated, singing, “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead”.
[/quote]
Let me edit my comments by saying there is definitely a place in politics for Carly, just not the Presidency.
I’d love to see her as the head of the RNC.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is/are there any combination/s of Republican and/or Democrat candidates that will keep you(anyone) home on Election Day? (This can be either a particular combination of candidates from your own party, or combinations from both parties…or, perhaps, your party could run the candidates that would normally keep you home, but there is a combination of candidates from the opposing party that is too sinister to not vote against.) Is there a combination that would force you to vote for a third-party so that your “voice is heard,” in spite of the fact that you realize the third-party does not have a realistic shot at winning?[/quote]
I would not be enthusiastic about a Trump/_____ ticket… I would potentially vote third party (assuming a good option existed) or not at all if Trump was the nominee. That’s probably true for Christie as well; although, I don’t feel as strongly about him. [/quote]
The dems would be enthusiastic about a Trump ticket.[/quote]
I know it’s silly tin foil hat stuff, but I would not be surprised if Trump is running specifically to help Hillary win. [/quote]
Carly said something about Trump getting a call from Bill Clinton shortly before he announced his candidacy. If there’s any truth to that, then it’s not out of the question that he is, quite literally, her “trump” card. Trump is a buffoon, yes, but what is he saying? Everything that a vast swath of the right is thinking? Or at least, everything that the left perceives that the right is thinking? His purpose in this campaign, as I see it, is to portray the entire right as the kind of jingoistic, racist boobs that, admittedly, many on the fringe are.
[/quote]
But what does Trump get out of playing the spoiler? Until someone explains that one to me I will continue to think that with Trump’s giant ego he thinks he can win.
[/quote]
Trump is a businessman and he’d have the President of the United States in his pocket. The possibilities are endless really.