No HP under Carly chose marketing and accounting and threw invention under the bus. This is because these people do not know what creates wealth - the human mind applied to human problems - inventions.

I had been for Walker; but he said that he was a-
gainst abortion, EVEN in cases of rape; that is an
outrage. On the point of saving the mother's life, he
tried to say her life could be saved in some other
way, which looks to me like trying to impose his
own wishes on reality, instead of confronting it.
Perhaps I should have realized some of this be-
fore.

Trump was a blowhard, and seemed to be
brazen and bragging about being unprincipled
and willing to bribe politicians.
Perhaps I will vote for Cruz.--Carson seemed
to be unpretentious, but didn't say all that much.

Surprise you pick a philosophy/history major to run a technology company.

HPQ stock price shot up even more when Carly was hired in 1999, so much for Wall Street short-term validation on real performance.

Carly put huge dents in the "HP Way" - ruffling feathers on many employees (and the some of her board - especially old Hewlett) - perhaps EXACTLY the kind of approach one should want from the next Top Executive on the US government. Some dents, real policy changes, firing of execs, consolidations of operating units (at HP from 83 to 4), etc. seems like a perfect for what is needed in DC.

It is not surprising she was fired - most people hired in to do major fixes end up being removed when the heavy lifting is done.
(Although the HPA stock, starting in July 2004, was a well on the way back up).

It would be interesting to see a real financial case study on HPQ from around 1996 (or perhaps a bit
earlier) through 2007 or so, especially compared to it's rivals. I think HP ends up being the only company with any employees.

Still - not my candidate. How about as Sec. of State...

Fox should be re branded as the catholic new station.

Christie good traits? like the ones where he wants to trample all your rights or?

Megyn encouraged the attacks - not the proper focus. Virtually all the candidates are too religious and cons. on social issues; they can't win the General unless Hillary implodes further.

My opinion:
Walker - went too far on abortion.
Paul - gotta go, bad foreign policy. And I think that has to be a key issue given Hillary and the world as it is today.
Kasich - should move up, at least a bit moderate on the social issues. But not the personality.
Trump - on borrowed time
Bush - too blah & "Bush"
Christie - too feisty, albeit with some strengths.
Huckabee - too altruistic
Carson - looked good but not likely for the L-T
Cruz - Ditto
Fiorino - very good, probably not electable; clearly the best of the 1st debate.
Rubio - looked good, presidential - most likely to win the nomination.

Indeed HP stock went up 6.9% on the day after Carly was let go.

Overall impression:
Don't see how you can call anyone a 'winner'.

The questions challanged the candidates giving the 'moderators' [?] time to show off their knowledge and desire to 'lead' the voters.

I would much perfer single issue debates with each candidate speaking to that issue with rebuttals. You know. An actual 'debate'.

Now that it is over I would like someone edit videos of each candidate's respoonse to the questions as asked.

I'll end up studying the candidates written positions in order to compare them more accurately.

In the end, I always Vote Libertarian and follow Rand's advice "If it increases Liberty, it is a good thing."

I remember all those companies. The mistake HP made was to choose a low margin business like PC's rather than to bolster a high margin business like printer ink. It was not an easy decision.

Ok I cannot take it. I outlined some of what I KNOW from my time at HP about Carly.

No doubt she did well in the debate. HOWEVER. This candidate, when she was CEO took a 100 year old VERY stable, Company, and practically destroyed it in a few years. I KNOW I WAS THERE!!! She was SO bad she was fired by the board of directors.
When the news came out she was being fired, and without a new CEO named, and AFTER clearing out 25 million in cash and 75 million in stock options, THE STOCK WENT UP!!! That is how bad she was.
Carly used the HP internal resources just like Obama uses AF1 to take vacations. Carly had an internal HP ad for "several" flight attendants who were experts on fine wines and cigars. Not like I care she smokes, but she was exploiting the company resources for her own pleasure.
Ask anyone who worked for HP then....all of us suffered with her horrid management and her policies that actually spawned internal corruption by creating dozens of HR departments and placing the HR department directly under control of the people who were guilty of fraudulantly cooking numbers, leaving NO REAL recourse to "whistleblow."
NOT somebody I want in the Whitehouse...
Normally a Company stock does noy go up when they have to payout 100 million to FIRE someone that bad...
HP STOCK WENT UP ON THE NEWS... THAT IS FACT!!!
That means that EVERY financial player, EVERY tech investor applauded her ousting because she was HORRIBLE. and they gained confidence even with NO named CEO.
I personally worked at HP during her ENTIRE tenure as CEO. I challenge yo to find ONE person who worked at HP other than a couple suck-up executives who would even remotely agree with you. I do not know one single person who worked at HP that I know, knew or worked with that would agree with anything positive about Fiorina. She was a DISASTER, she ruined moral, she chased away hundreds of millions in revenue by ignoring any customer that did not cough up at least 100 million dollar contracts. I can go on and on about her, because I WAS THERE!!!
She is easily blamed for all the internal HP policies that led to miserable personnel moral, the chasing away of customers, rapid decline of HP's marketshare. And before you can say...gee that was the beginning of the tech bubble crash and she cannot be blamed the HP's problems.
OH YES SHE CAN BE BLAMED. Carly made a miserable purchase of Compaq, and had no clue the problems that would cause because she was more interested in trying to build an empire and make a name for herself. So here is some HP internal info you.
When Carly bought Compaq, her stupidity and unknowing direction was to "merge" all the IT systems using the project codenamed "Fusion". She put Peter Blackmoore in charge, and directed him to MERGE completely incompatible systems which failed miserably because there were INCOMPATIBLE. This led to almost 1 year of missed shipments, pissed off customers, projects that missed deadlines, lost equipment, we had 4 months of triage just trying to get crap shipped to customers, and there were many customers that recieved penalty payments FROM HP because of missed deadlines. This had nothing to do with a tech bubble collapse.
Then she decided to move major amounts of Project management to Costa Rica. That was a terrible failure and cost HP hundreds of millions again from pissed off customers who could not understand let alone communicate with people who were always on Siesta. HP is still trying to recover from THAT debacle. Again nothing to do with a tech bubble collapse.
That also does not count the complete confusion customers had between HP Storage and Compaq storage, multiple internally competing product lines, and the lawsuits filed by the Compaq authorized service centers, where Carly and HP breached contracts because they did not do their research into the conflicts....Carly had no clue on M&A, and how to actually merge to very different companies. Again nothing at all to do with a tech bubble collapse.
HP would have weathered the storm fine had she exercizes simple management 101, but she was to incompetant to do that. She was more interested in flying around on the HP jet smoking cigars and driking $1,000.00 dollar bottles of wine while she hobnobbed with kings and princes in saudi arabia, trying to act like a rock star.

Please do not get me started on Carly...

I worked for HP at the time, and during her entire tenure AND during the Compaq purchase.

I can detail from the inside of HP her complete and total incompetence. But keep this in mind.

HP board coughed up 25 million in cash and 75 million in stock to FIRE HER ASS.
Normally a stock would go down with that kind of capital expenditure to fire someone.

On the news she was fired, and with NO new CEO named. HP Stock went up. THAT IS FACT!

I would not want that self-serving incompetent broad anywhere near the white-house.

OK, abject failure is an exaggeration as it implies HP completely failed. Thanks for calling me on it ;^)
Survival. I don't find that a reason to praise Fiorina, who misused $25 billion on acquiring Compaq, imo. Yes, the next POTUS will have a very difficult job, but mere survival isn't good enough. She had no clue how to run a company like HP and it showed. Ditto for the US presidency. She is a very competent promoter of herself, and if she wants to serve the sovereign people (the essence of all elective government jobs) she should recognize her limitations and do a job that doesn't exceed her level of incompetence.
If faced with the question I posed in the previous post, she would probably say she wouldn't change a thing, since she did such an exemplary job assuring survival of HP.
OTOH, if she presents a business plan that looks like it was devised by Ron Paul, e.g., dismantles the federal reserve, describes practical way for closing and promises to close numerous agencies of the fedgov, establishes severe punishment for offenses against the Bill of Rights by government, orders the NSA to cease wholesale spying on Americans, and closes the DHS (returning transportation security to the private sector). I could change my mind.

To me, what was sorely lacking from any of the candidates was a vision for the future. Maybe along the lines of :
1) I dream of a nation where success is rewarded instead of vilified.
2) I dream of a nation where the rights of the individual a respected and inviolate.
3) I dream of a nation where the right to the profits of your work is guaranteed.
4) I dream of a nation where personal responsibility is the norm.
Obama used the concept of "vision" with great success in both elections.

Loved Carly. A mind that's free of political claptrap.
Cruz showed his debating skills, not much content.
Rubio is cute.
Paul is too real and honest to get elected.
Carson is a good man, but too sweet.
Trump was too Trumpish.
Christy is another Trump but without the money.
Bush looked like he needed a nap.
I thought that the questioners did a good job considering that they only had 2 hours to question 10 people. I didn't expect that there would be many break-throughs. There were a few heated discussions but nothing to put in your diary. If nothing else, you got a look at their faces and attitudes.

Way too much, but it was the most exciting debates, and I mean both of them, that I have ever seen in my life. Carly needs more media exposure to move ahead. We need for the nominees to thin out, there are too many of them and too many subjects to get anyone's real perspective at this time, lack of detail.

Trump blew it. After the debate, in fact this morning, I just read about how they turned Kelly's question about women around and blamed her for asking it because it was that time of the month. I agree with my wife, "We've already got one asshole in the White House, do we need another one?" Sorry, but I didn't know how to word it, that's how I feel too. Trump is just like Obama, only he doesn't try to disguise it.

And, speaking of turning things around take a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP6S3...

I agree, Carly was a pro! Of the top runners later, Trump was a mess, the rest somewhat lackluster.
I did like the much of the responses Carson, Rubio and Walker, but no one hit it out. Busch hd to keep denying what he had said earlier, and did not seem very impressive.
I did not care for the approach of the Fox crew, it was more like a tlak show. No questions about the Federal Reserve, UN Agenda 21, thinks that will impact our lives in a big way. Not much on education and the dept. of. Nothing on Hillary's call for windfall profit tax. Nothing on climate change: manmade vs government weather control intallations, both HAARP and in Puerto Rico. Huckabee's ending comment on Hillary, which could have been for Trump was clever.

For the very reason you state ("Bush derangement syndrome" as Rush calls it) Bush doesn't have a prayer of getting any Democrat votes, and few swing votes. Rand Paul is the one Republican I've heard my liberal friends speak of favorably, so he's got a better chance to gain what are usually anti-Republican votes.

Not sure why you disliked Dr. Ben Carson, as he's intelligent and well-spoken. Please don't tell me he irritates you because you can't imagine a black Republican.

Ted Cruz was the winner, by collegial debate rules (which didn't surprise me, as he was the best debater on the Harvard debate team), but he did sound irritatingly pious. The heavy reference to religion plays well with evangelical Christians, who make up a significant portion of the Republican base, so I'm sure he plays on that.

I'd like to see a shootout between Carly Fiorina and Elizabeth Warren, as that would neutralize the "vote for me, because I have a vagina" element Clinton likes to play on, and would be a battle of ideas.

You apparently didn't watch the "prebate", because Carly Fiorina blew away every other candidate on the stage. I suspect she would have outdone any of the "top ten" as well, but maybe this works in her favor, as she will certainly be in the upper tier in any subsequent debates, when no one is going to want to try to top the gotcha questions of the Fox moderators. The early debate was a better show of the policy positions of the candidates, without the hysteria of the upper tier sideshow.

I did not watch the debate, but did read up on it a bit. I am most disappointed regarding the lack of emphasis on rights. The candidates all seem to be focused on what I call non-issues although Rand Paul comes closer on domestic matters than most. I wish they would stop worrying so much about ISIS and foreign policy. We have so much to fix here that I question that emphasis.

I agree with you for the most part. It's about time that Dr. Carson and Fiorina are recognized for being intelligent and Conservative. They both have courage. Would love to see a Carson/Fiorina ticket. I have no problem with the candidates talking about their religious beliefs.

Securing the border will not work. There are powerful interests that need that labor for their crony industries. The only way to reduce illegal employment is to massively penalize the CEO of the company. But we don't hear about this approach. I wonder why...

All I hear is deflection and talking points. All a comedy.

Why isn't the happy hour debate online to view? Have to have Cable. Go figure...

I would check your premise about Fiorina being the cause of "abject failure" at HP. Taking over at the height of the dot com craze in 1999, would be a troubling time. All "minicomputer companies" (remember those?) manufacturers were facing a huge shift the marker to MUCH lower margin PC/micro-based technology and competitors with a completely different sales model and margin structure.
Anyone remember:
Data General
Digital Equipment Corp
Prime Computer
Apollo
Tandem Computers
Wang Labs
even
Sun Microsystems
and dozens of smaller firms.

It is a tough challenge selling horse buggy's during the introduction of the automobile - along with a wholesale change of dealerships...

HP survived the collapse in their core computer industry (so far..). I do not recall that any other manufacture of mini-computer has (outside of previous/existing "mainframe" manufacturers).

I'm astonished that the intent of the Fox moderators apparently went over the intellectual heads of so many here in the Gulch. It was quite apparent to me what they were doing. As the "owners" of the first debate, they had the unenviable task of trying to "thin the herd" of candidates, and the best way to do that is to ask the worst "gotcha" questions they could think that the MSM will throw at any of the candidates. It was also a kind of favor to the candidates, allowing them to show they can handle the worst the media can throw at them.

Given those challenging tests, Trump lost, by choosing to take Megan Kelly's "war on women" question as a personal attack, and engaging in an attack on her in response. In contrast, Fiorina, Rubio, Cruz, Carson, and Huckabee handled the personal challenges with grace and intelligent answers. Kasich had the best responses and leveraged his positive achievements as governor as well as Bush, but like Bush, came across as whiny and irritating. Cruz was unflappable and won every exchange with the moderators, but his preachy demeanor is irritating.

I also think the Fox moderators were sort of throwing down the gauntlet to later debate teams on CNN and CNBC. After the near-outrageous gotcha questions they threw at the candidates, it's nearly impossible for later questioners to top them without sounding unacceptably biased, and may even force them to appear more reasonable and unbiased.

Kelly spells her first name "Megyn."
Don't feel bad.
When I first wrote of her h\in the Gulch, I wrote "Megan."
Think I mentioned her being hot and a mother of three.

I was not impressed with any of them. It was an evening of political bromides and meaningless posturing. I wanted to like Carson, but he failed to do anything more than deliver quips and sound bites. Trump was buffoonish, but at least he was entertaining. Christie was in-your-face autocratic. Huckabee....well...I can only see him as the fascist "draped in a flag and carrying a cross." Rubio was bland to the point of disappearing into the backdrop. Kaisch is just and Ohio version of Huckabee. Paul....damn, I really wanted to like him. Something in his demeanor and his delivery was too desperate, too unprofessional. I was not impressed with his foreign policy, and he really didn't talk about domestic policy much. Since I'm familiar with Rand Paul's positions, I already have a affinity for him, but I was disappointed in his political debating skills. Both Trump and Christie got the last word on him, so the low-information-voter is likely to see him as the loser of the bantering. Not good for getting elected.