Who is the better businessperson?
I don’t really care, but it’s pretty clear to me that Fiorina would be a much better president. She’s at least willing to do her homework. And she’s not a boor with the mentality of a grade-school kid.
[Update a few minutes later]
It won’t change my vote, but this is the first coherent (and apparently long standing) position that Trump has taken with which I agree: A nationwide-ban on gun-ownership restrictions.
Yes, its a fundamental human and civil right.
[Tuesday-morning update]
I’m not generally a big Vox fan, but Timothy Lee has some interesting facts about Fiorina and her career.
[Bumped]
[Late Wednesday-morning update]
Defining Fiorina. Interesting discussion in comments.
[Bumped]
I work at HP.
I will vote for a Cthulhu-Stalin ticket before I vote for Fiorina.
Yes, I hear a lot of that.
HP just laid off something like 80,000 recently. It’s a very difficult business with cutthroat competition. A very different business climate exists today, and when Fiorina was there, compared to its heyday.
As far as I can tell, she did fairly well on her Kobayashi Maru.
Her big move was to buy Compaq… what did that get HP?
HP had some of the best products and inspired people, very proud of what they were doing, before that.
How’s Lucent doing?
Well, according to the article Rand linked to the other day:
“Her plan to make HP a credible competitor for IBM worked far better than the strategies of McNealy and Dell and enabled HP to modestly outpace IBM as well.”
Oops, that is the article MikeR links to below.
Me too. Why vote for the lesser evil?
For several years in the ’80s I worked (incognito of course) at a fairly large aerospace company; at one point, our corporate management was ranked by Forbes as something like 340 out of 350 among manufacturing companies for management quality. So I know from shitty management. But even given that, I’d vote for one of those bozos before I’d vote for the Hildebeest or Uncle Joe or SickBern.
BTW, I’d never be caught undead having anything to do with Stalin except as a snack.
Why do so many conservatives say they want a much smaller executive, but don’t like someone who has experience laying off thousands of people? I see Carly’s HP record as a strength of sorts, not a liability. Too many, I think, are letting their hearts (sympathy for the unemployed) lead their heads on this one.
Yes, I pointed that out on Twitter this weekend. I’d like to see her go through the federal bureaucracy like s**t through goose, starting with the IRS. Instead of just merging two companies, I’d like to see her consolidate half a dozen departments.
I think you mean you would like the see the federal bureaucracy go through her like s**t through a goose, at least that’s how I already think of the IRS… like s**t.
Okay, now you have my interest.
I heard one thing to make me leery of her, from a caller to Rush Limbaugh yesterday. The caller related that Fiorina created a new policy that [i]all[/i] managers had to have college degrees, keeping lots of highly skilled tech professionals from moving up the ladder. Heck, she wouldn’t have let Bill Gates be a junior manager at HP.
It struck me as out-of-touch with how the cutting edge actually works and rather elitist.
Given the civil service laws, it’d be difficult to get rid of the tons of deadwood on the government payroll. Reforming those laws should also be a campaign issue.
Can’t you just eliminate their department?
” I see Carly’s HP record as a strength of sorts, not a liability. ”
As do I.
Meh. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-18/carly-fiorina-s-hewlett-packard-record-in-one-chart
Not evidence that she did a good (or okay) job, but consistent with it. Whether she actually did a good job depends on how much of the crazy infighting among the board of directors was actually her doing.
Well, FWIW, one of the directors who voted to oust her has since said it was a mistake, and now supports her.
Gotta jump on those coattails early ya know.
…Which begs the question. 🙂
For me, it’s pretty simple–in theory. Just apply the (patent-pending) Bilwick Statist Scale. Going from 0 (anarcho-libertarians such as Robert LeFevre and Murray Rothbard) to 10 (totalitarian tyrants such as Stalin, Mao and Hitler), with State-f*ckers such as Obama, Hillary and Baghdad Jim, say, at 7 or 8, which candidate is closer to 0 than his/her opponents?
What complicates matters, in dealing with as wide a field as the Republicans have currently, is finding a candidate’s correct place on the scale. I’d be curious where the regulars here would place the different candidates on the scale, and why.
If Obama is 7, that doesn’t leave much room for Boehner at 5 and McConnell at 6. I think this is one scale in which Hillary would be a perfect 10.
I have to believe that given that chance, Hillary! or Barrycade would be every bit as brutal in carrying out their “utopia” as Stalin or Mao. It is only strong institutions against absolute executive power that have prevented them from doing so.
I also have my doubts that a 0 on that scale could keep the peace when welfare riots break out. But an administration rating 3 or less would be good for this country.
Conservatives are statists too. They just emphasize different parts of the state.
For example, they would increase the DoD, border patrol, and increase enforcement of immigration law.
Is this a bit like the argument that roads are socialism?
“Conservatives are statists too. They just emphasize different parts of the state.”
Yes – those parts of the state for which they were given specific responsibility in the Constitution.
TRUE conservatives stay within the list of responsibilities stated in the Constitution. And when a little unclear, they err on the side of non-Federal action.
You’d have to take that up with a valid, “card-carrying” conservative, Casey. I’m a libertarian. I used to call myself a “conservative,” but statist conservatives like Ernst van den Haag threw me and others like me out of “the Movement” around 1970.
But assuming you’re actually trying to make a valid point and not just create a diversion (is “Casey” perhaps a pseudonym for Sidetrack Bob?), I’d be interested where you would put conservatives you don’t like on the Bilwick Statist Scale. Would they actually be higher on the statist end of the scale than more consistent State-f*ckers such as Obama and Hillary? Curious.
Assuming you’re actually interested in making a valid point, Casey
Carly reminds me of my ex-wife. Both are smart and win arguments. I also like what she says, but there is something I can’t quite identify that makes me distrust her.
As usual the media wants to define Trump and he gives them plenty of ammunition. His humor is a good thing but inappropriate. Language does not convey his thoughts. He’s popular because he can get the obvious past the barrier of media bias.
Plus he will scare the hell out of our enemies (friends as well until they’ve had some time with him.) The current admin never fails to give aid and comfort to our enemies while snubbing our friends. It would be a pleasant change.
Carly might be a better hachetman, but hearing Trump say ‘yer fired’ would have some entertainment value so he might do it often.
On the fundamental human rights issue; have you seen this ignorance from Sally Kohn?
I only just read the Dilbert link. Scott Adams is truly gifted.
For me, the important thing about Fiorina’s business experience remains that Fiorina made decisions that were great for Fiorina, but you’d be hard pressed to find anyone else who similarly benefited. This isn’t necessarily all her fault. After all, both Lucent and HP were places with a remarkable lack of adult supervision and it is likely that her decisions would have been more useful to others, had those supervisors been more competent.
But here, the problem is that the US is much like those companies with the same lack of adult supervision and vastly greater temptations.
Having said that, I don’t see most of the people running as being any better. I hate to say it, but I consider her the most likely to win the Republican nomination just due to her competence, knowledge, and skill compared to the rest of the field (Bush being the other significant contender IHMO) and that she may well be less bad than all but a couple of people (I still favor Paul and Jindal).
Which gets more traction?
Trump: I wouldn’t let Fiorina run any of my businesses.
Fiorina: Trump went bankrupt four times.
Trump seems the clear winner.
So much for my Trump/Fiorina ticket sadly.
“I hate to say it, but I consider her the most likely to win the Republican nomination just due to her competence, knowledge, and skill compared to the rest of the field…”
Still too early to be able to make even a cursory conclusion in my opinion. But you could be right.
This article helped me put a finger on what was nagging me about Fiorina. It’s her time at sales in Lucent. It taught her how to tell half a story. Take “modestly outpace IBM” for example, which could be a wildly misleading metric.
If you add HP to Compaq, short term of course you have revenue growth for HP, BUT that’s not the same as not acquiring another company and still getting the growth. Carly seems to make decisions she can use to self promote and advertise as such. She claims secretary to CEO giving the false impression it was in one company rather than separate times in her life.
How have their decisions helped others should be the metric. HP layoffs should not be considered because that again is a false metric due to a merger.
The media has a false narrative they are blatantly promoting,”Trump is a balloon ready to pop” but this article says it honestly…
“If his name wasn’t Trump, the pundits would be saying this race is over,” Lewandowski said. “If the name was Bush — and Jeb is in about sixth place, by the way — and he was getting 28 and 32 percent, it would be all over.”