IDBillzFan Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Tripling her salary on the backs of those 30,000 laid off people? Buying a yacht? Five jets? You only have an argument if you're talking to the 1% voters. Wow. When did you turn leftist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 And how, exactly, does a CEO set their own salary? Technically you guys are both right on the layoffs and salary points. But you and I both know that your argument won't work in a presidential election (see 2012). It's too nuanced for an American public who are fighting just to stay afloat. The article also points out that she was not well liked there at HP. That tells me that the left would have some awesomely effective commercials with former employees telling America how Carly didn't like to mingle with the "little" people. That's a one two combo KO shot to the chin, lights out, election over. Wow. When did you turn leftist? I've never understood morally how companies could decide paying CEOs 10s of millions of dollars while laying off employees in the thousands. I mean, I understand it in the business sense. Just morally, I do not like the business practice at all. It's obscene greed when you do that in the process of laying off that many people. There is a point where the CEO salary becomes obscene if massive layoffs are involved, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Technically you guys are both right on the layoffs and salary points. But you and I both know that your argument won't work in a presidential election (see 2012). It's too nuanced for an American public who are fighting just to stay afloat. The article also points out that she was not well liked there at HP. That tells me that the left would have some awesomely effective commercials with former employees telling America how Carly didn't like to mingle with the "little" people. That's a one two combo KO shot to the chin, lights out, election over. So you're shooting down a woman who was responsible for 100K jobs (ps - total number of jobs at HP were higher after she was ousted than when she came in) and received a pay package that was negotiated with a board of directors, but are championing a candidate who's bragging about his $10 bn net worth, and you think that will play better with the 99%? A woman who's risen to CEO from secretary vs a trust fund baby who was handed a real estate empire by dad? Don't you people do any research on your own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 I've never understood morally how companies could decide paying CEOs 10s of millions of dollars while laying off employees in the thousands. I mean, I understand it in the business sense. Just morally, I do not like the business practice at all. It's obscene greed when you do that in the process of laying off that many people. There is a point where the CEO salary becomes obscene if massive layoffs are involved, don't you think? Usually because the board establishes a bonus structure for the CEO based on shareholder equity. So if the CEO maximizes the equity, they maximize their bonus. Not many CEO's get an eight-figure salary. They get eight-figure performance-based bonuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 I've never understood morally how companies could decide paying CEOs 10s of millions of dollars while laying off employees in the thousands. I mean, I understand it in the business sense. Just morally, I do not like the business practice at all. It's obscene greed when you do that in the process of laying off that many people. There is a point where the CEO salary becomes obscene if massive layoffs are involved, don't you think? So to recap, in lieu of throwing your support behind a smart, well-spoke female candidate because of a big salary shaved off the backs of the 99%, you prefer to throw your support behind a male candidate who told one of his female employees he'd like to see her on her knees sucking his dick? Trump is playing you. And you're letting yourself get played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Carly did not do great against a Liberal women in 2010, a year Republicans did really well: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-election-results-how-barbara-boxer-bucked-a-national-trend-by-beating-carly-fiorina/ Sounds like Boxer painted her as a Mitt Romney type 1%er. It's hard for a business leader to win elections if they try and do the right thing in business Not even Jon Huntsman can win as a GOP senate candidate in that state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 11, 2015 Author Share Posted August 11, 2015 Not even Jon Huntsman can win as a GOP senate candidate in that state. True, but in a bad year for Dems she got totally smoked by Boxer. Maybe nothing, but its all we have to go on with her short political resume. Also, it says a lot about how much Jeb has fallen now that so many right wingers are trying to pump up Carly now. How long till the election?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 a male candidate who told one of his female employees he'd like to see her on her knees sucking his dick? It was not a nice thing to say, but it was on a TV show in the 2010s. Perhaps he should have done a remake of "Bedtime for Bonzo" instead. Trump is playing you. And you're letting yourself get played. Meghan Kelly is playing you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 So to recap, in lieu of throwing your support behind a smart, well-spoke female candidate because of a big salary shaved off the backs of the 99%, you prefer to throw your support behind a male candidate who told one of his female employees he'd like to see her on her knees sucking his dick? Trump is playing you. And you're letting yourself get played. For the record, I never said I'm voting for Trump. While I like watching him run right through the MSM, I'm not there yet. I could see him learning on the fly and growing into becoming a great candidate down the road though. As for the Brandi comment. I'm not so offended because she's a former playboy bunny and it was a joke that made Trump look silly, not her. If it was so egregious then why did NBC air it as part of the show? Are you accusing ultra-lib NBC of using blatant sexual harassment for ratings? Why did Trump remain hired by the most liberal network NBC if this was so beyond offensive? It was a bad joke, that's it. If NBC felt it was ok, why would you care so much? Even Brandi feels it's silly to make it an issue. She's a sex symbol, she's probably heard a thousand awkwardly delivered sex jokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 For the record, I never said I'm voting for Trump. While I like watching him run right through the MSM, I'm not there yet. I could see him learning on the fly and growing into becoming a great candidate down the road though. In other words: you're getting played. All this is, is another Trump reality TV show. That Trump even gets serious consideration as a candidate is the penultimate triumph of celebrity over governance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 11, 2015 Author Share Posted August 11, 2015 LOS ANGELES – Jeb Bush is planning to issue a full-throttle attack Tuesday night on the Obama administration’s handling of Iraq and terrorism issues, asserting that Hillary Rodham Clinton “stood by” as secretary of state when the situation in Iraq deteriorated, creating the conditions that led to the rise of the Islamic State as the Obama administration reduced its troop level in Iraq. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/08/11/jeb-bush-says-hillary-clinton-stood-by-as-iraq-descended-into-violence/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/08/11/jeb-bush-says-hillary-clinton-stood-by-as-iraq-descended-into-violence/ Not that you could argue with any of those points... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 True, but in a bad year for Dems she got totally smoked by Boxer. Maybe nothing, but its all we have to go on with her short political resume. Also, it says a lot about how much Jeb has fallen now that so many right wingers are trying to pump up Carly now. How long till the election?? You can take everything you, personally, know about running against Barbara Boxer in the state of California, write it down on a piece of paper, crumble up the paper and shove it up the ass of a gnat. Boxer wasn't going down regardless of a bad year ANYWHERE, but Carly was smart enough to use the opportunity to give her voice and campaign some trial runs, and it is paying off. As for the Brandi comment. I'm not so offended because she's a former playboy bunny and it was a joke that made Trump look silly, not her. If it was so egregious then why did NBC air it as part of the show? Are you accusing ultra-lib NBC of using blatant sexual harassment for ratings? Why did Trump remain hired by the most liberal network NBC if this was so beyond offensive? It was a bad joke, that's it. If NBC felt it was ok, why would you care so much? Even Brandi feels it's silly to make it an issue. She's a sex symbol, she's probably heard a thousand awkwardly delivered sex jokes. This says everything we need to know about how you think. Very microscopically. Your first mistake is trying to equate a Playboy model with a porn actress. Your second mistake is thinking that just because Brandi was okay with it, everyone else WILL be okay with it. And your biggest mistake is spending way too much time trying to explain something. When you're explaining, you're losing. Meghan Kelly is playing you. Who is Meghan Kelly? You mean Meghan McCain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) Who is Meghan Kelly? Good catch. I meant Megyn Kelly (but I think you knew that). I violated my own rule of not looking up how to spell peoples names before using it in a post. I humbly apologize to Megyn and you. Edited August 11, 2015 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 11, 2015 Author Share Posted August 11, 2015 Good catch. I meant Megyn Kelly (but I think you knew that). He isn't very smart so he has to try and catch whatever he can. Makes him feel big to catch a spelling mistake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 This says everything we need to know about how you think. Very microscopically. Your first mistake is trying to equate a Playboy model with a porn actress. Your second mistake is thinking that just because Brandi was okay with it, everyone else WILL be okay with it. And your biggest mistake is spending way too much time trying to explain something. When you're explaining, you're losing. Maybe it’s the times we live in, but I’m fairly certain Trump’s comment to Brandi doesn't even register a blip on America’s outrage meter. There were 24 million viewers and the Brandi comment was mentioned as part of Kelly's question. It's received no traction now so why would it later? When you have 100s of controversial quotes like Trump does, why is that particular one the one you thinks does him in? I have heard no outrage after it being brought up in the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 He isn't very smart so he has to try and catch whatever he can. Makes him feel big to catch a spelling mistake When that's all you got, I guess you gotta go with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 The PPP poll has Trump up by 6.5% in the state of Iowa. The very same poll also shows Hillary Clinton would lose the swing state of Iowa to several potential Republican opponents, according to a new poll from a Democratic-leaning company. The Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey released Tuesday showed Clinton getting the worse of match-ups against GOP candidates Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and retired surgeon Dr. Ben Carson. snip A recent survey by Quinnipiac showed Clinton trailing GOP candidates in the swing states of Iowa, Colorado and Virginia. Other polls have suggested voters don’t trust Clinton. Republicans believe she is a flawed candidate and have railed against her use of a private email server as secretary of State, hoping this will resonate with voters. The poll wasn’t all bad for the Democratic front-runner. Clinton also beats a number of potential Republican challengers in the poll, including current front-runner Donald Trump, by 3 percentage points, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, over whom she has a 4-percentage-point lead. snip Clinton is also severely underwater in terms of her overall favorability with voters in the state. She is viewed unfavorably by 52 percent and favorably by 38 percent of Iowans, according to the PPP poll. However, Trump and Bush fared even worse than Clinton’s net negative 14-point favorability rating. Trump was among the worst candidates tested in terms of net favorability: his rating was minus 27 points, with only 30 percent of Iowans saying they viewed him favorably and 57 percent viewing him unfavorably. Bush had a net favorability rating of minus 16 points (29 percent favorable, 45 percent unfavorable). Public Policy Polling surveyed 1,500 registered voters in Iowa from Aug. 7 to 9. What this reconfirms is that Trump has the most fervent supporters, those that like him are pulling the lever for him and when you have a field as large as this one with 17 candidates, he's going to take the lead. But there are are nearly twice as many people who dislike him as those that do like him, meaning that once the field begins to whittle down, he's going to get smoked. As much as I like Bush on a substantive level, I just don't believe he will be able to get a high turnout with republicans. Same goes with Trump, he can fire up the right wingers, but many of the traditional and moderate republicans won't come out to vote for him. So it's gotta be someone who can meld the two and to me there really are only two options that can do that and that is either Scott Walker or Rubio. Maybe Fiorina, but now that she spoke out against St. Trump and Mark Levin basically gave the signal to not trust her, she's gonna be seen as just another "Rhino" among the most hard core of the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 I have heard no outrage after it being brought up in the debate. Liberal women being force fed by the Hillary campaign may feel differently. Hillary doesn't even have the gun loaded yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Liberal women being force fed by the Hillary campaign may feel differently. Hillary doesn't even have the gun loaded yet. Of course not, her gun is aimed at the serious candidates. As far as she's concerned, it's a dream come true seeing Trump have the spot light on the GOP side. Here is another Poll from Iowa that shows Trump up by 4.5%. Sounds good, right? “It appears that Donald Trump’s lead is strong so long as the number of active opponents remains above a dozen,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center in Boston. “If the Republican field were winnowed down to five or six candidates, Trump’s 17 percent probably wouldn’t be enough to win in Iowa, as polling indicates that his further growth has limitations. Among likely caucusgoers who watched the debates, Suffolk University found that the top candidates remained the same, but the race was tighter. Trump and Walker tied for first at 14 percent, Rubio came in at 11 percent, Fiorina and Carson were tied at 10 percent and Cruz was at 9 percent. “In the absence of a debate, Trump’s lead widens because he swallows up the political oxygen, but when that oxygen is spread out more evenly in a debate, it breathes life into the other candidates, and the race gets closer,” said Paleologos. More than half of debate watchers said they were less comfortable with Trump as a candidate after they watched him Thursday; 23 percent of those polled were more comfortable. His base of devoted followers/support is higher than anyone else's, but his ceiling is much lower than the top tier candidates. He simply is too unlikable not just among the general population but among GOP voters as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts