2016 Presidential Horse Race

[connor_in]

Fiorina laid off thousands of workers and led HP's stockholders off a cliff with a 50% reduction in stock value. Her career at HP ended with her being fired by the Board of Directors for her poor management style. So when she talks about her experience leading a Fortune 500 company, she fails to mention the lives she negatively impacted. She wasn't up to the job. What makes her think she is up to the task of being president?

I'd love to see Fiorina as the Republican candidate. She has most of Mitt Romney's negatives and none of his positives.

Wow it's amazing how it appears this describes HRC too!!!!!!

 

[Black Irish]

Fiorina laid off thousands of workers and led HP's stockholders off a cliff with a 50% reduction in stock value. Her career at HP ended with her being fired by the Board of Directors for her poor management style. So when she talks about her experience leading a Fortune 500 company, she fails to mention the lives she negatively impacted. She wasn't up to the job. What makes her think she is up to the task of being president?

I'd love to see Fiorina as the Republican candidate. She has most of Mitt Romney's negatives and none of his positives.

I gotta agree with you here (Ow! It burns!). It's hard to brag on your biggest accomplishment when it was a grand failure. Notice how she hasn't been offered another big time CEO job since HP, unlike Meg Whitman, who is sitting in the HP C-suite now after her California governor run didn't pan out. As far as Fiorina thinks she's up to the task; she can't, unless she's incredibly delusional. Someone else called it; Fiorina is campaigning to be someone's VP choice.

 

[phgreek]

Wow it's amazing how it appears this describes HRC too!!!!!!

Both exhibited serious incompetence, still

Fiorina is not a criminal that I know of.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Welcome to the Donald Trump show - POLITICO Magazine

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Paid actors at Donald Trump announcement - Business Insider

 

[Black Irish]

Welcome to the Donald Trump show - POLITICO Magazine

He needs to stop wasting everyone's time.

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">"Right now?" Wouldn't that always be true, by definition? <a href="https://t.co/bVqvEj7liL">https://t.co/bVqvEj7liL</a></p>— Senator Blutarsky (@USSenBlutarsky) <a href="https://twitter.com/USSenBlutarsky/status/611255556305723394">June 17, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Black Irish]

This pretty well sums up my feelings about a Hillary vs Jeb election.

 

[wizards8507]

New Quinnipiac poll data:

Ohio: Kasich leads Clinton, Paul ties Clinton, all other GOP candidates lose to Clinton.

Florida: Clinton leads all GOP candidates

Pennsylvania: Rubio and Paul lead Clinton, all other GOP candidates lose to Clinton

 

[Wild Bill]

New Quinnipiac poll data:

Ohio: Kasich leads Clinton, Paul ties Clinton, all other GOP candidates lose to Clinton.

Florida: Clinton leads all GOP candidates

Pennsylvania: Rubio and Paul lead Clinton, all other GOP candidates lose to Clinton

2016 Presidential Swing State Polls Poll - June 17, 2015 - Clinton, Rubio Close In Florid | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

"Most of the eight GOP hopefuls are within striking distance of Secretary Hillary Clinton in at least one of the three states. In Ohio, Gov. Kasich leads."

"But perhaps more troubling for her than the continuing slide is how she is perceived by voters who continue to say she is not honest and trustworthy."

"But potentially more disturbing for her are low marks for caring about voter needs and problems. This is where Democrats almost always fare better than Republicans. Yet in this survey many Republican candidates do as well or better than does she," Brown added.

Interesting. There seems to be an opening for another D candidate to take her out, and Obama gave them the blue print.

 

[connor_in]

2016 Presidential Swing State Polls Poll - June 17, 2015 - Clinton, Rubio Close In Florid | Quinnipiac University Connecticut



Interesting. There seems to be an opening for another D candidate to take her out, and Obama gave them the blue print.

but...but...but...she wants to be the people's champion 'n stuff...and she's just like us...so relatable ...and she wants to help the struggling and attack the rich (see post #883 )

 

[IrishJayhawk]

but...but...but...she wants to be the people's champion 'n stuff...and she's just like us...so relatable ...and she wants to help the struggling and attack the rich (see post #883 )

She's rich, Jeb's rich...all of them except Bernie and Biden are really rich. How about their policies? In my opinion, her policies are better for people who aren't rich.

 

[wizards8507]

She's rich, Jeb's rich...all of them except Bernie and Biden are really rich.

Marco Rubio is the "poorest" of the candidates. Rand Paul #10, Jeb #3 at $10 million, Hillary #1 a $21M. She has DOUBLE the net worth of Jeb Bush. That's not even close.

Net Worths for Every 2016 Presidential Candidate

 

[connor_in]

She's rich, Jeb's rich...all of them except Bernie and Biden are really rich. How about their policies? In my opinion, her policies are better for people who aren't rich.

Yes, they are all rich...some more so than others.

In YOUR opinion her policies are better for those who are not rich. In MY opinion her policies are worse for those who aren't rich.

However, SHE is the one who is gratingly trying to claim to be the people's champion...to represent those who are struggling...she is the one pandering the most (after all she "ain't noways tired") and saying these things over and over while always hanging out and taking money from the richest of the rich and complaining about rich republicans

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Yes, they are all rich...some more so than others.

In YOUR opinion her policies are better for those who are not rich. In MY opinion her policies are worse for those who aren't rich.

Sure. Glad to discuss those points. I tend to think that supply side economics has been proven to be ineffective time and time again (for current data, see Kansas). They don't call it that, but that's still what Republicans are pushing.

However, SHE is the one who is gratingly trying to claim to be the people's champion...to represent those who are struggling...she is the one pandering the most (after all she "ain't noways tired") and saying these things over and over while always hanging out and taking money from the richest of the rich and complaining about rich republicans

And Republicans are gratingly trying to claim that they care about income inequality, all the while pushing for the exact same policies they have been advocating since Reagan (when income inequality started to get worse).

 

[connor_in]

Sure. Glad to discuss those points. I tend to think that supply side economics has been proven to be ineffective time and time again (for current data, see Kansas). They don't call it that, but that's still what Republicans are pushing.



And Republicans are gratingly trying to claim that they care about income inequality, all the while pushing for the exact same policies they have been advocating since Reagan (when income inequality started to get worse).

Looks like a pretty healthy spike during ol Bill & Hill's first two terms, don't ya think? And has it been great for the Great Society folks during the current admin as well? I would guess not if that is an issue this time again as well. And how has Great Society programs been working out for America? In heavy urban areas with eons of democrat leaders, how are things going? Never mind, I shouldn't ask that as I am sure it is all Reagan & the Bushes fault. I retract my questions...

 

[wizards8507]

Sure. Glad to discuss those points. I tend to think that supply side economics has been proven to be ineffective time and time again (for current data, see Kansas). They don't call it that, but that's still what Republicans are pushing.

And Republicans are gratingly trying to claim that they care about income inequality, all the while pushing for the exact same policies they have been advocating since Reagan (when income inequality started to get worse).

Rich people getting richer doesn't offend me. Notice how the poor people are also getting richer? Who cares if the rich are getting "more richer"? Honestly it's like you'd rather see all wages grow at 1% than see wealthy wages grow at 10% and poor wages grow at 2% because the first way is "more equal."

 

[phgreek]

Sure. Glad to discuss those points. I tend to think that supply side economics has been proven to be ineffective time and time again (for current data, see Kansas). They don't call it that, but that's still what Republicans are pushing.



And Republicans are gratingly trying to claim that they care about income inequality, all the while pushing for the exact same policies they have been advocating since Reagan (when income inequality started to get worse).

this matters if you think it deserves to be prioritized as high as it is...

Its a symptom...when did detroit and overall manufacturing start to seriously give way? Couple the foreign production migration with mechanization, and there are simply fewer people needed across the board. Add in oversight and regulation. It is a labor buyer's market, and has pretty much been that way since the close of the 70s; also the environment is currently not entrepreneur friendly; and not re-investment/expansion friendly. Government investment has generally not been of the type which allows government exit...we don't need more government involvement where the government is a constant sugar daddy.

We need to do WAY better at the things we can control before we start a new phase of "rich people suck".

 

[pkt77242]

Rich people getting richer doesn't offend me. Notice how the poor people are also getting richer? Who cares if the rich are getting "more richer"? Honestly it's like you'd rather see all wages grow at 1% than see wealthy wages grow at 10% and poor wages grow at 2% because the first way is "more equal."

Are you looking at a different graph?

The bottom 20% saw a total growth of 16% in something 28 years, and the middle fifth saw a growth of 25% in 28 years. That isn't getting richer, it is getting poorer. I won't speak for him but your last statement is just crazy as well. First off it ignores the facts, the poor's wages were not growing at 2%. Not even close. Again 16% in 28 years is no where close to 2%. You are smarter than that Wizard. If the rich's wages were growing at 10% and the wages for poor and middle income earners were increasing at an average rate of 3-5%, you wouldn't see the people complaining about it. Even the middle fifth of earners was growing at below 1% a year.

ETA: Hell most people would take a 2% growth rate in wages for the bottom 50%.

 

[DSully1995]

Are you looking at a different graph?

The bottom 20% saw a total growth of 16% in something 28 years, and the middle fifth saw a growth of 25% in 28 years. That isn't getting richer, it is getting poorer. I won't speak for him but your last statement is just crazy as well. First off it ignores the facts, the poor's wages were not growing at 2%. Not even close. Again 16% in 28 years is no where close to 2%. You are smarter than that Wizard. If the rich's wages were growing at 10% and the wages for poor and middle income earners were increasing at an average rate of 3-5%, you wouldn't see the people complaining about it. Even the middle fifth of earners was growing at below 1% a year.

be careful when taking about bottom 20% and top 1% over periods of time. I (and all college students) am in the bottom 20% but within 28 will be in the top 20%. Your not talking about the same people here.
As someone who as taken a bit of stats, they are as easy to mislead as they are helpful.

Mandatory Thomas Sowell video:
(its relevant near the end of the video to this debate)
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EgVDyBqAQNw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[pkt77242]

be careful when taking about bottom 20% and top 1% over periods of time. I (and all college students) am in the bottom 20% but within 28 will be in the top 20%. Your not talking about the same people here.
As someone who as taken a bit of stats, they are as easy to mislead as they are helpful.

Mandatory Thomas Sowell video:
(its relevant near the end of the video to this debate)
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EgVDyBqAQNw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I understand that (I too have taken a stats class and for that matter a research class) but you have to work with the information that is available, not the information you want. I am not going to do a longitudinal study following people and their incomes (though it would be really interesting). Yes stats can be misleading, and yes you can massage many stats to say what you want, but in cases like this we have to go with information that we have, otherwise how can you debate it?

 

[ACamp1900]

Which party has had the majority of power (fed and state I suppose) over the last 35 years? I've never seen a study done on that and I'd honestly like to know...

 

[GoIrish41]

And how has Great Society programs been working out for America?

Are you talking about the Civil Rights Act, or the Voting Rights Act in 1964? Or the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or the Higher Education Act of 1965? Maybe the Child Protection Act, the Child Nutrician Act of 1966 or the National School Lunch Act of 1968?

These laws protect citizens against descrimination and ensure our representative democracy does not hinder voting for anyone. They protect the environment for those who would destroy it for profit (I think Pope Francis had something to say about this today). They have helped to educate our society, and ensured that kids have at least one nutricious meal to eat every day. I'd say, on balance, Great Society programs have been working out pretty well for millions of Americans, and, by extension, America as a whole.

 

[pkt77242]

Which party has had the majority of power (fed and state I suppose) over the last 35 years? I've never seen a study done on that and I'd honestly like to know...

On the Federal level since 1980
President:20 years (Reagan 8, HW Bush 4, W Bush 8)
Democrat: 15 years (Clinton 8, Obama 7)

Here is the numbers for Congress
Composition of Congress by Party 1855–2017

Senate From 1979:
Democrats:16 years
Republicans:16 years
4 years essentially a toss-up. Though you really could split it 2 years and 2 years. In 2001-2003 it was 50-50 but with Republicans controlling the WH, Cheney would have been the deciding vote, giving control to Republicans, and in 2007-2009 it was 49-49 with 2 Independents, who I believe caucused with Dems.

House From 1979
Democrats: 20 years
Republicans: 16 years

No offense I am not going to break down the states.

 

[wizards8507]

Are you talking about the Civil Rights Act, or the Voting Rights Act in 1964? Or the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or the Higher Education Act of 1965? Maybe the Child Protection Act, the Child Nutrician Act of 1966 or the National School Lunch Act of 1968?

These laws protect citizens against descrimination and ensure our representative democracy does not hinder voting for anyone. They protect the environment for those who would destroy it for profit (I think Pope Francis had something to say about this today). They have helped to educate our society, and ensured that kids have at least one nutricious meal to eat every day. I'd say, on balance, Great Society programs have been working out pretty well for millions of Americans, and, by extension, America as a whole.

You're not a big fan of the Constitution, are you?

 

[GoIrish41]

You're not a big fan of the Constitution, are you?

Am I supposed to guess what you are talking about?

 

[Buster Bluth]

You're not a big fan of the Constitution, are you?

I'm not a big fan of pretending a modern nation can function as if it were the 18th century.

There's a reason guys like Thomas Jefferson proposed rewritin the Constitution every two or so decades.