I didn't know that. Like I said, I didn't know about her since yesterday around 6 PM. If she laid of 15K workers for the good of remaining say 60K workers, I can't fault her. Sometimes you have to make tough decisions. Not a complete negative in my book and believe me or not when I was in college I was influenced by socialist ideals. Coming from me, this should mean something. That said, I will watch her closely in the next few months for sure.
Too drunk sir. Simply, democrats are liberals and socialists are not. Socialists are the champions for equality, democrats are champions for individual rights. There are differences believe me. And Obama is not a socialist. I voted for him but just because his middle name is Hussein like my uncle. I had to vote for him and I don't even like him
Good question. But no answer. Not here as an expert. Just a simple guy stating his opinion. Let's discuss later if OK with you.
No climate change? Total idiocy when 97% of all scientists say it's directly related to man made activities esp carbon based emissions. But almost all of the Repubs deny it esp when they get in line to take the Koch Bros money like the "puppets" they are. Now you see the reason a clown like Trump is popular. Maybe the populace aren't such sheep after all. Esp when these phonies say they're all for future generations. And could care less about endangering the environment. Your Repub party hard at work.
no disrespect to you but thats a bullshit criticism IMO. I'm never gonna vote Rubio (because I disagree with his stances on issues), but I read the NY Times piece that pushed your claims and I came away extremely disappointed with the Times and almost endured to Rubio because of it. It was an extremely elitist criticism IMO. The guy had student loans, a mortgage and he paid them off. That's America and we want to give him shit for that? in 10/20 years either all our candidates are going to have a similar story or else we are going to be electing the 1% only. Fuck the Times with that BS. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/us/politics/marco-rubio-finances-debt-loans-credit.html?_r=0
She ran a company into the ground (HP) and now she's going to run a country? I don't thinks so. As CEO of HP, Fiorina presented herself as a realist regarding the effects of globalization. She was a strong proponent, along with other technology executives, of the expansion of the H-1B visa program. Fiorina responded against protectionism in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, writing that while "America is the most innovative country," it would not remain so if the country were to "run away from the reality of the global economy." Fiorina said to Congress in 2004: "There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore. We have to compete for jobs as a nation."[While Fiorina argued that the only way to "protect U.S. high-tech jobs over the long haul was to become more competitive [in the United States]," her comments prompted "strong reactions" from some technology workers who argued that lower wages outside the United States encouraged the offshoring of American jobs. In the US, 30,000 HP employees were laid off during Fiorina's tenure. In 2004, HP fell dramatically short of its predicted third-quarter earnings, and Fiorina fired three executives during a 5 AM telephone call. Fiorina frequently clashed with HP's board of directors, and she faced backlash among HP employees and the tech community for her leading role in the demise of HP's egalitarian "The HP Way" work culture and guiding philosophy, which she felt hindered innovation. Because of changes to HP's culture, and requests for voluntary pay cuts to prevent layoffs (subsequently followed by the largest layoffs in HP's history), employee satisfaction surveys at HP—previously among the highest in America—revealed "widespread unhappiness" and distrust, and Fiorina was sometimes booed at company meetings and attacked on HP's electronic bulletin board. During Fiorina's time as CEO, HP's revenue doubled due to mergers with Compaq and other companies, and the rate of patent filings increased. According to reports, however, the company underperformed by a number of metrics: there were no gains in HP's net income despite a 70% gain in net income of the S&P 500 over this period; the company's debt rose from ~4.25 billion USD to ~6.75 billion USD; and stock price fell by 50%, exceeding declines in the S&P 500 Information Technology Sector index and the NASDAQ.In contrast, stock prices for IBM and Dell fell 27.5% and 3% respectively, during this time period. In early January 2005, the Hewlett-Packard board of directors discussed with Fiorina a list of issues that the board had regarding the company's performance. The board proposed a plan to shift her authority to HP division heads, which Fiorina resisted. A week after the meeting, the confidential plan was leaked to the Wall Street Journal. Less than a month later, the board brought back Tom Perkins and forced Fiorina to resign as chair and chief executive officer of the company. The company's stock jumped on news of her departure, adding almost three billion dollars to the value of HP in a single day. Many employees celebrated her resignation. Under the company's agreement with Fiorina, which was characterized as a golden parachute by TIME magazine, and Yahoo!, it was reported she had been paid slightly more than $20 million in severance. Assessments of Fiorina's business career have varied. During her time at Lucent and Hewlett-Packard, she was named by Fortune Magazine the most powerful woman in business. Later, the February 7, 2005 issue of Fortune described her merger plan as "failing" and the prognosis as "doubtful". She has been described as one of the worst tech CEOs of all time. Good choice.
I hadn't seen that article but I am just going back to some stuff in 2005-2006. I live down here so I have been reading about Rubio for years, not major stuff but running for Pres. puts you under the microscope. Part of it had to do with him creating a political committee and then the committee using the home and him charging 150K for the use, legal tax wise but still doesn't seem right. Then there were payments to relatives that were questionable. As I said small amounts and I am sure most of the other candidates have some as questionable if not more but to me it just didn't look good. More so probably because I have been reading about Rubio for going on 10 years now.
Plus we live in Florida so we know his shady tactics with the real estate deal and the using the party credit card fiasco for personal expenses. Also, more importantly he hasn't done a damn thing for Florida as well. He just used the Senate seat just to make appearances on tv and talk radio for his political ambitions and that's it.
How did it get to people (quite a bit) thinking that Social Security and Medicare are bad when people pay into it?
I don't mind paying that at all. Or being forced to pay it either. Maybe it just might help someone other than myself a little bit. Something the Repubs don't believe in.
The only outrage should be about the redundancy of the statement. In 2012 89% of registered republicans were non-hispanic whites - do you think that number has gone down recently?
social security is a piece of shit. if you've paid into it you deserve to collect your money but I should have the option of opting out and handling my own retirement. I've paid in for over 20 years and would opt out of everything I've put in tomorrow if given the option to never have to pay in again. I'd be able to retire 10 years sooner. I could die in those 10 years. I want referring to soc sec when I referred to entitlements though.
And 90 percent of blacks vote democratic, despite the parties long standing record of racism? What;s your point?
