Carlie Fiorina

[MegaPoke]

Btw, this is the first time in 3 presidential elections that i am actually interested in any of the R/D candidates...though it is still early....

Same here.

Not ready for a Carly Fiorina tattoo just yet, but I admit she is as intriguing as any candidate in my voting lifetime. Keeping an open mind. I was way higher on Trump before the debate and his crybaby little bitch act over tough questions from mean ol Meygan

 

[blbronco]

Trump is always and has always been a caricature of himself. He has made and lost his fortunes on his name, not his ideas or contributions. He will always cram his foot down his throat. I would love to have drinks with him, but would not trust him with any real power.

He has, oddly enough, been a shot in the arm for the GOP, though. He has drawn a few to middle territory, and opened the door for non-career politicians, (carly) to gain credibility. I need to learn more about them, but that is why i am so intrigued by fiorina and kasich. Where the GOP has lost me in the past, is that they yammer on and on about lessening big brother, creating jobs, etc, but those useless assholes spend more time focusing on things that do nothing for those ideals.

ie: taking on planned parenthood/marijuana/marriage equality - that is increasing big brother, creates no jobs, does nothing tangible for the country, yet alienates many and really only caters to lobbyists and party extremes.

Education and healthcare are other areas that they cater to small groups while alienating the masses. Those are two areas that i certainly see as very important (and where i fall further from the Libertarian Party/ideology), but the GOP plan is nothing more that "do the opposite as the Democrats." Those are points i want to see addressed by these candidates.

 

[squeak]

Find me a CEO and I'll find you people who think he/she is an idiot.

 

[Headhunter]

What is always failed to be mentioned is how many people and how much money was lost by HP competitors during that same period of time.

Any CEO worth their salt is going to have enemies inside and outside the company. Every decision has people who are on the other side of the issue. Just like politics.

Look at the long term results of the moves she made while at HP. It saved the company and turned HP into an industry giant.

 

[poke2001]

Taking on Planned Parenthood is a smart move right, and the majority of Americans don't want their tax dollars going to baby organ harvesting operations.

In general, I agree that social issues need to take a back burner, but the PP stuff is in the spotlight, and those that were caught supporting them will look very foolish. I don't see this PP stuff as a social issue, rather one of common human decency.

 

[NeekReevers]

She's obviously good at selling herself to others (and certainly she was an excellent salesperson before taking over HP) there is no denying that. The problem is that once she got the job, her performance was so bad that she earned the title "worst tech CEO" by any number of business publications.

This sounds exactly like Barack Obama to me. I have no idea what kind of CEO she was at HP and frankly wouldn't trust anything reporters are going to say about her. There is plenty of time to make a judgement about her, this process has just started. Overall I know she was not well thought of as a CEO and that will not help her. However, unless some big negatives come up against her she is here to stay and may end up with a big chunk of the Donald supporters once he finally flames out.

With respect to Planned Parenthood, that is a loser of an issue for Republicans. If the topic comes up, denounce it, but keep it in the background as much as possible. No Republican candidate is going to gain votes by making this a big deal. Paul has let it derail his campaign to some extent.

 

[shortbus]

I love her so far. She's been amazing, and after the way Rand Paul came off during the debate, it turned me off and I'm in her corner now for sure. Unless something happens, she'd be my number one.

 

[hollywood]

Headhunter,

In that same period of time she held tenure as the head of HP (July, 1999 - Feb 7, 2005), the value of HP (per stock price/market share) dropped by over 50%. The company's net profits declined significantly, despite nearly doubling total sales volumes by acquiring Compaq. The company's debt went from $4.25 B to $6.75 B. And as has been pointed out previously, the stock bounced upward by $3 Billion the day her firing was announced (which should tell you what the big fund managers and financial people felt about her performance.)

You want some comparison numbers?

While HP's net income decreased, in the same period of time - the average income increase among all S&P 500 companies went UP by 70%. Now, I realize that the "tech" industry got hit with a bit of a "recession" due to fallout from the dot.com bust that began around that time and using overall numbers from the DJIA or S&P may not give an accurate or fair comparison. So let's look at some direct competitors.

Dell's stock stayed virtually unchanged in that period of time, trading right around $40+/share.

IBM lost about 23% of it's value.

Canon (a direct competitor in the printer business) went from $18/share in Aug 1999 to $32/share in Feb 2005.

On a worldwide basis, Lenovo was virtually unheard of in 1999 (having been founded only in 1988) but they made so much money in that same era that they were able to purchase IBM's entire PC business.

Acer, Inc was down about $1.50 in that same time period.

EPSON (which debuted on the Tokyo stock exchange in 2003, rose some 16% in value by Feb 2005 from its opening day price.)

And over all, those companies trading on the NASDAQ (where most tech companies trade) who lost money/value - lost far less in value than HP in the same time period on the average.

So, there's the start of a comparison for you.

 

[MegaPoke]

My favorite two criticisms so far are

1. That she dared call Hildo out for lying.

2. That she (a woman who worked her way up from secretary to CEO) is part of the war on women because she is against government mandated paid maternity leave. She is for paid leave and calls it the right thing to do but is against gov mandating it - preferring to let the market use it to attract the best candidates.

I too am interested to know how HP did comparatively to other tech companies at that same time. She calls it the biggest tech sector recession in the last 25 years. That true?

 

[MegaPoke]

Headhunter,

In that same period of time she held tenure as the head of HP (July, 1999 - Feb 7, 2005), the value of HP (per stock price/market share) dropped by over 50%. The company's net profits declined significantly, despite nearly doubling total sales volumes by acquiring Compaq. The company's debt went from $4.25 B to $6.75 B. And as has been pointed out previously, the stock bounced upward by $3 Billion the day her firing was announced (which should tell you what the big fund managers and financial people felt about her performance.)

You want some comparison numbers?

While HP's net income decreased, in the same period of time - the average income increase among all S&P 500 companies went UP by 70%. Now, I realize that the "tech" industry got hit with a bit of a "recession" due to fallout from the dot.com bust that began around that time and using overall numbers from the DJIA or S&P may not give an accurate or fair comparison. So let's look at some direct competitors.

Dell's stock stayed virtually unchanged in that period of time, trading right around $40+/share.

IBM lost about 23% of it's value.

Canon (a direct competitor in the printer business) went from $18/share in Aug 1999 to $32/share in Feb 2005.

On a worldwide basis, Lenovo was virtually unheard of in 1999 (having been founded only in 1988) but they made so much money in that same era that they were able to purchase IBM's entire PC business.

Acer, Inc was down about $1.50 in that same time period.

EPSON (which debuted on the Tokyo stock exchange in 2003, rose some 16% in value by Feb 2005 from its opening day price.)

And over all, those companies trading on the NASDAQ (where most tech companies trade) who lost money/value - lost far less in value than HP in the same time period on the average.

So, there's the start of a comparison for you.

Canon is a terrible comparison. They are a print business competitor but they also are an industry leader in high end photography gear and always have been.

Epson is interesting. But the rest seem like apples and oranges.

 

[blbronco]

Neek, absolutely agree on PP. that topic is poison for the GOP. Right, wrong or indifferent, they need to avoid it taking over their campaigns.

 

[shortbus]

You make good points about her tenure at HP but I would assert that there are some factors at play that you may not be considering. Server virtualization and where they were positioned relative to Dell and others, to take advantage of that, for one.

HP had been the leader in servers and remained up until just recently. Dell's entry into that market really hurt HP, but she could certainly shoulder the blame for a lack of foresight.

 

[Headhunter]

Even if you want to consider her tenure at HP a failure, I argue it was only after she left in a board room brawl that the true value of her moves showed on the balance sheet, she is way ahead of anything the Democrats can produce with real world experience.

She rose up through the good old boy network that was Silicon Valley in the 90's to be CEO of a major tech company. Hillary wouldn't be squat without riding Bill's coat tails.