Oh and how about when she engaged Eagle Transportation that lost more shipments than they delivered...I had one project where not only did Eagle lose it, when we found it about 30 million in Storage was literally destroyed.

And Incompetent Carly would give you the same crap that the GOP has delivered since 1984.
Isn't it fortunate that we DONT HAVE TO VOTE FOR EITHER OF THE WORTHLESS LOOTERS.

Thank you for confirming from another view how pathetic Carly was.

I assume then you remember the Fusion Project, AND the triage centers to address all the screw up from their IT merging project..

I was a TC3/PM5 in the Storage Practice, and had a very different viewpoint from a different angle, and if you combine all the angles, not matter how you cut it, HP's problems had NOTHING to do with the tech bubble bursting.

Although Carly has her flaws (from leadership style during her HP days mainly), under no circumstance would I cast a vote for Hellery over Carly if it came down to those two. Hellery would result in more of the same ever-expanding government crap we've seen over the last 7 yrs.

Wow - very interesting. Thanks for such a thorough history lesson in Carly-gate! It's good to know these things. After knowing this, I concur it would be a huge mistake to make her the GOP candidate.

So I'll give you her history and you can make your own conclusions.

1. Her degree was in History yet somehow she managed to finagle her way into being CEO of Lucent Technologies (a tech firm that made telecomm equipment). She rose to power just as Lucent was making huge profits and then bailed out after two years to take the job at HP after having been groomed by Lou Platt (HP's then-time CEO). Lucent plunged immediately afterward into irrelevancy. Note: It takes about two years for a CEO's policies to fully take effect.
2. After coming on board at HP, she simultaneously changed the name of the company to HP Invent and at the same time oversaw a slashing in the R&D departments in order to beef up flagging profitability. She poured a ton of money into marketing (her forte) and gutted new product development budgets. To give you an idea how far she went, when the company was run by Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard, they mandated that 12% of gross revenues be put back into the R&D of the next product lines. Under Carly that dipped to below 2%. She cancelled all their research agreements with well-known universities in California who were working on things like nanotechnology before it was cool.
3. She purchased two brand new corporate jets at a time when corporate profits were slim and the stock price was stagnant - and they already had two! These were $15 million each and for reserved use - hers. At the same time, she layed off 5000 people (her first round of layoffs). At that time, a typical employee at my plant was probably making $75K. You can do the math.
4. She basically blackmailed a bank into supporting the buyout of Compaq, from which she made $40 million in direct pay from the merger and which she openly declared would be going into her war chest as a future politician. The Compaq CEO made another $30 million and then moved on. The merger tanked HP's stock price, and all HP really got out of it was egg on their face and Compaq's server business. If they would have waited even a year - and preferrably two - they could have paid 1/10th the price or less for the same assets - Compaq was already on its way down. And it wasn't as if other companies were in a bidding war for Compaq's assets. In the end it just made HP Compaq #1 (instead of #2 in server sales - Compaq was #1) and #1 in PC Sales (Dell was #1). Both of these were short-lived, however, as Dell soon overtook HP in both and it has been back and forth ever since. HP used to be the only name in the game in printers, but now even I would rather buy a Brother than an HP because HP's quality has sunk so far.
5. Following the merger, HP layed off 15,000 people just from HP alone. But it specifically targeted those who were within five years of retirement because HP's hiring policy had been that a retiree from HP was guaranteed health insurance benefits for life. They made sure to throw in just enough people to make it hard to prosecute in court, but everyone knew what they were doing and why because they wrote in a non-litigation clause into the separation package. My father was one of the casualties after just having been treated for cancer. This was especially egregious because during HP's earlier hard times - which included the disintegration of DMD, they would relocate and retrain their employees and only lay them off if there was no other choice.
6. Under Hewlett/Packard, the bonus program extended to every HP employee no matter what their job description. I knew janitors that got quarterly bonuses that made all the difference to them. Under Lou Platt (and some of his disastrous decisions regarding Disc Memory Division), the bonus program was restricted to just managers. Under Carly, that program was further restricted to just VP-level employees and above.
7. Carly Fiorina completely destroyed the HP Way. She turned the greatest tech company in history into nothing more than an consumer electronics manufacturer.
8. She was fired. No matter how she wants to try to spin her story at HP, it ended in failure. She got paid a lot for failure, no doubt, but never let her tell you that she was successful at either Lucent OR HP because the facts say otherwise. She left neither company stronger for her "leadership".
9. She couldn't even defeat Barbara Boxer for a Senate Seat despite out-spending her.

Carly Fiorina is a politician. I was there while she was CEO and my father worked at HP for 22 years before his ouster at her hand. She's no more a producer than James Taggart. She has nothing to crow about that anyone with a little Google search help can absolutely destroy. She'd get blown out of the water by Hillary Clinton because everyone already knows Hillary didn't accomplish anything, while all of Carly's "achievements" were nothing more than political opportunism at the expense of the company's long-term (sound familiar at all?).

I'm just saying that if the candidate is moving the ball toward the right end zone, just not as fast as we here in the Gulch would like, that is better than a Dem., who would without question move it toward the wrong endzone. But I understand your point, RINOs are a huge problem.

blarman, great reply! I'm curious why you would eliminate Carly F because you used to work for HP. Is there something in particular she does/did as a leader there that is a turn off? She strikes me as very sharp in the interviews I've seen lately, so am intrigued, but additional insight would be helpful.

In the general election, I have refused to vote for Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain, and Romney because all have been intolerable. I would rather have full-fledged socialists and get the pain over than a protracted decline toward a country I cannot tolerate.

You forgot Donald Trump. He would make a change in Washington that none of the other candidates can. Think about it.

I would vote for Donald Trump. He has name recognition and is a true capitalist. He would self finance and therefore be beholden to no one. He knows how to manage, negotiate, and get things done. He would stop China's currency manipulation. He knows how to win.

He is the only candidate that could really make a difference. He would be a breath of fresh air. Ok you have to get past his ego but he is proud of himself as he should be. Unfortunately the Republican establishment will never let him win the primary unless there is huge support for him. They will probably throw a tisy fit.

Ok I agree with Da Judge for the Judge..I'll be darned if I can disagree on the SG Job.. One less layer of corruption.

If the GOP doesn't nominate someone tolerable (Rand Paul, Walker, Carson, Cruz in that order) then I'll vote for the Libertarian Party candidate and to hell with them. I'd rather see Hillary win than allow another RINO to stain the party's reputation and promise, and that means anybody but those four. "Electability" does no one any good if it means electing someone who will continue to move the ball toward the wrong end zone (meaning increase federal spending, even a tiny bit).

Understood - we need tolerable, but we also need electability. Short of electability, we'll end up with another Dem. In the primary, yes, we should vote according to which candidate is aligned most with our views, but in the general election, we're really just aiming for beating the socialists.

WOW. I'm actually stunned to see so many here willing to vote for any of those corporatist/collectivist/Federal Reserve Whores. I've never voted for a Republican or Democrat for federal office - there's never been one who had the slightest leaning towards objectivism, individualism, or even capitalism, any type of capitalism. You have to face it, we are living inside Mussolini's wet dream.

Voting for any of them (possible exception of Rand Paul - yet to see) is no different than putting a "Wesley Mooch 2016" bumper sticker on your car.

I worked my tail off for Ron Paul - who does fit the bill. Maybe not a pure objectivist because of some of his religious views. But, he is the only one in my life so far that believed in individual liberty and rights. And, he is the only one not willing to bomb little brown children because their parents believe in a different magic sky daddy.

Plus - the RNC and DNC have already chosen their candidates. Most likely even the presidency itself has already been decided.

In the video I (yes, that is me) chickened out from the stegosaurus's threat display.
Oh, the shame! The shame! Oh, boo-hoo-hoo!
Then on top of that, I tried to mooch my mate's din-din!
Ayn Rand wouldn't like me!
Waaaah!

Meaning that you go after chickens instead? Or are they their ancestors... ;)

Not for nothin' but I'd prefer Andrew Napolitano for SCOTUS. I like Huckabee just fine as an all around decent guy, but that simply qualifies him for the job he has now on TV as a talking head.

As far as Carson for Surgeon General, I think he'd be the ideal pick except for one thing. Why exactly do we have a Surgeon General anyway? Dr. Oz has more influence over how we think about medicine than whoever the current SG is. I don't really understand the need for the government to have a paid policy shill in that particular position other than to be the go to guy for Congress to grill the next time we get hit with the scourge of Equine Flu or Siamese Fever or whatever.

Can we add onto that a requirement to start over completely if there is any proof of election fraud?

I propose an amendment to add "None of the Above" to all ballots. If NOTA wins an election, then that jurisdiction gets to declare its freedom from the tyrannical power wielded by other jurisdictions.

Agreed completely.

McCain and Romney were 10th and 9th out of those running in 2008 for me. I voted for neither. I would vote for those you would vote for and not vote for those you would not vote for.

Republicans are Red
Democrats are Blue
Neither one Gives a Crap about You!

Mr. Virtual President, of course. Bill Whittle. Too bad he doesn't qualify. Just short of being an Objectivist too.

We need;
An Objectivist with balls AND charisma. And enjoys wrestling with pigs.

Back to reality.
Rand Paul or Ted Cruze would at least slow down the "progress" we have been making so much of.

Don't worry. My diet is supposed to be stegosaurus not other stuff--but I keep chickening out. On the other hand, maybe you should worry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUdcrYvh...