Strange, I made a bunch of money with HP when she was there. What she cut, Mexicans and Indians, mostly were all expenses according to the WSJ

Yup!
1 - Carly
2 - Rick
3 - Bobby

My maternal grandfather was Russian.
Yep, ve vill see vat ve vill...
:)

You're making some very damning accusations. I have no particular love for Trump, but no particular dislike of him either. As to "need or want" I don't see him either needing or wanting her money. I realize that you are in the Gulch and that means, I'm sure, that we are in agreement on many issues. But, I don't know you well enough to simply take your word, especially when you put forth such devastating claims. Hence, the "reference card." In your original comment, I don't think you were clear about it being conjecture. It came off sounding as if you had access to certain data not known to the general public -- and certainly not me. In any case, I think we have gone as far as we should in this forum. As my Russian Grandpa would say, "Ve shall see vat ve shall see."

Herb, you've confused "need her money" with "WANT her money"... plus, even in the Debate, he made it clear that Money => future leverage and influence! If that isn't clear to you, how the hell could he make it more clear?!

And PLEASE don't play the 'references' card... no, I wasn't there with a hi-def videocam with full surround sound to prove my CONJECTURE... but I'm also a guy that predicted NYC's bankruptcy under John Lindsay about a year or two before it became reality.

I just like observing patterns and noticing similarities. So,... check back around next December... :)

Oh, and any such abortion issue, if it surfaces, WILL be VERY much interesting to her Party and most of its voting base.... no? :)

Absolutely!

The republicans can sell themselves all right.....just not to the electorate

You might be interested, but Trump has given millions to the Clintons over the years - including Hillary herself. Now I've heard the argument that he gave to lots of candidates, yada yada, and that he did so to get himself into political circles. It's still highly suspect in my book.

Let's look at "the Donald". He has no libertarian or conservative platform. He's been a vocal proponent of big government and other socialist policies like Canadian healthcare in the past. And when he's questioned point blank about his current platform, he dodges the questions.

I like the guy for talking big, but I'm through with the self-aggrandizement. I want specific policy points. Every other candidate at the debates presented them - except Trump.

And let's face it - he's also the only one who has threatened (and probably would) a third-party run. We all know how that plays out - the Democrat wins. If Trump wins, we get a big-government RINO vs a socialist (Sanders) or a monarchist (Hillary). That leaves even worse options than the last several elections.

I worked for HP (as a contractor) when Carly was hired - and when she was fired. My dad worked there for more than twenty years and he was one of the ones axed right after the Compaq merger. I have nothing but disgust for the woman. She did nothing to invest in the company, instead turning it from R&D into a marketing company for also-ran consumer tech. This shouldn't be surprising for anyone who looked at her background, as this is exactly what she did for Lucent before Lou Platt tagged her to succeed him. And just like Lucent tanked just after she left, so did HP.

I would love to be able to vote for a businessman, but I'm not going to vote for a looter like Carly who strong-armed a bank into barely approving the merger so she could fund her political warchest with $38 million in bonuses. I'm not going to vote for a looter who fired 15,000 employees at the same time she had to go purchase two new corporate jets - even though they already had two in very good shape. I'm not going to vote for a looter who changed the company logo to "HP Invent" while simultaneously slashing R&D. I'm not going to vote for a looter who gave herself lavish bonuses while the stock price tanked, and was ultimately fired. (PS - Want to know why Barbara Boxer destroyed Carly in their Senate bout? Because Californians knew Carly's record at HP)

Carly is no Hank Reardon or Dagny Taggart. She's a slick-talking Wesley Mouch.

I won't vote for Santorum either.

Why would Trump need Hillary's money? Is there any evidence to back up your claims? References?
Abortions -- I've had my appendix out, but I bet you wouldn't know it unless I told you.

The Republicans need to run as the Party of Dismantling.

Wait a year and a half, then look that post up again... :)

Dear plusaf:
You sure do make a fine conspiracy buff.

You have a great deal of character.
GOOD!
Please hold on to that.

Well, Herb, you already know that I hate Carly, but there are a few other aspects to consider...

We haven't heard much about her abortions yet, have we? That might bring some conservative pressure on her in a bad way.

Next, consider that Hillary's Foundation is probably bankrolling Trump to be a spoiler and split the conservative/Republican vote, LIKE PEROT DID, to ensure a Hillary win....

And finally, wouldn't the greatest Republican ticket be Anyone + Carly? Carly could play the attack dog and rip Hillary apart, and when the guy she runs with gets elected and dies mysteriously shortly after inauguration, Carly becomes Prez...

Scary enough scenarios?

Enjoy!

I wouldn't vote for any of the clowns the GOP would pick, but if I make some rational commentary maybe someone else will see the con, too, and stop consenting.

But don't you understand...that is what it takes to get the nomination these days?
People (voters)...are superficial (at best).

Since watching and listening to the 2 debates, my wife and I both came away very impressed with Ms. Fiorina. She has a confident message and demeanor. One can see the wheels quickly turning in her head.. I believe, and hope, we will see much more of her ability. I would pay money to see her debate Mrs. William Clinton.

Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson would make a team but that would never happen,,,either one of them is capable of learning all the political skills necessary to govern and they both appear to have plenty of belief in America and open government. I still laugh about Dr. Carson's comment about removing half a brain.

They both bring high standards to what can easily become a shaky debate. Trump is the show, but they are the dignified substance We are fortunate to have people of their caliber interested. Glad they both are involved.

My first impression of Santorum six-and-a-half years ago was--loser!
That never changed.
Now he's back.

Khrushchev spent his entire term "de-Stalinizing" the Soviet Union. We need a president who will "de-Obamaize" AND "de-FDRize" the United States!

And I don't mean delete mentions of them from the history books. I mean delete their actual effects from the law books, and impeach their Supreme Court appointees.

Since the focus hasn't been on Fiorina with amateur political pundits, it may not be obvious, but she's already had left wing show hosts try to go after her tenure at HP, and she defends her decisions there very well. Trying to dissect the decisions she can be held solely responsible for requires detailed knowledge of the HP office politics, and a better than average understanding of business and economics. Even Donald Trump becomes visibly frustrated when he realizes that his audience has been left behind because they have only a foggy notion of his explanations of business or finance. Fiorina seems to understand very well how to make her questioners seem confused by her simple explanations that resonate with general audiences.

Americans want to believe they admire winners, but the definition of "winner" has become almost synonymous with "celebrity". How else does one explain Kim Kardashian, who exhibits zero talent, yet has gained much wealth? Some wannabe Presidential candidates (like Trump)make the mistake their celebrity is sufficient to gain them the nomination, but only Fiorina exhibits the recognition that good marketing skills are needed to successfully negotiate the media minefield.

I do love Carly. I'm sure we'll learn much more about her as the candidate competition heats up, but as for now, I'd surely put her near the top. She has the kind of concise decision making mind so essential to a good executive, and in the final analysis, isn't that what it's all about?

I was much more impressed with the undercard than the "big show." CF truly desires a place in this run. Most (if not all) of the kids table candidates said the one thing I wanted said, "I will delete the executive orders signed by BO." If it were up to me, we would spend the next couple of years deleting the name of the socialist in chief from the history of America (like the Egyptian pharaohs did to their predecessors).

In my opinion, it has come to the point where the candidate who best sells him/her self usually wins. That is how it is in business sales, for the most part, and the last two presidential candidates on the Republican side simply could not sell themselves. Look at Slick Willy and The Big O as good examples of that. Most of the low information voters do not understand or care about the important issues, so they look for a shiny bauble for whom to vote.
What I like about Carly is her ability to talk, think, and stay on track in the face of leftist taunts, in addition to her strong support of many objectivist principles..
For many years in my career HP was one of my primary clients. I can tell you that once Bill and Dave left, the only strong executive (IMHO) that came along was Carly. She faced much opposition from the good old boy network (with whom I worked), and eventually that led to her demise.
I think she has all the qualities of an effective president, by my own standards.

The sooner she gets eliminated the better. Her business record is poor, and she hasn't the ability to represent me. She is an expert at selling herself, but nothing more.