Can any of you explain to me why Donald Trump was basically fired by NBC?...and yet, at the same time, Al Sharpton remains on the payroll.
Herd Fever, Anti Whites, and Liberals
- Thread starter MichiganHerd
- Start date
First, I don't like Al Sharpton.
Second the Donald might be who this country needs as a President. Someone who isn't a puppy and keeps it real. What is going to hurt him is she should have ran independent instead of a Rupublican. He might be a little extreme and might get America into some serious shit, but atleast he is honest about how he really feels about things
Second the Donald might be who this country needs as a President. Someone who isn't a puppy and keeps it real. What is going to hurt him is she should have ran independent instead of a Rupublican. He might be a little extreme and might get America into some serious shit, but atleast he is honest about how he really feels about things
Nuh, I already knew how Fever felt about 'Big Al'. I was really interested in getting his take regarding the double standard in play, but he balked on giving an opinion.
Donald is oh so good for the GOP... Throw a tent over this primary and call it a circus...
The entire 2016 presidential campaign on both sides is a joke. Not one person is presidential at all.......Not one
And Al Sharpton is a snake looking for the next racial issue to capitalize on. But when it comes to black issues not involving race,, he is no where to be found. He is black people's version of Nancy Grace AND he is a snitch surprised the Mafia hasn't taken him out yet.
It is interesting. I keep reading the mocking of GOP candidates from some on here. But no one has truly offered a reason why they are not really qualified. All have varied backgrounds/upbringings/ and career experiences which far surpass the current Pres.
A neurosurgeon (who happens to be black), An optometrist,
A former CEO of a fortune 500 company (who happens to be a woman)
6 (current or former Governors), A self made billionaire businessman, 4 others with more legal experience in govt bureaucracy (Senate/House) than even Barack had prior to his run.
Compared to the Dems: Lincoln Chafee. Hillary Clinton. Martin O'Malley. Bernie Sanders.
Of course the favorite in the Dem bunch can claim to be victim of an habitual philandering husband which allowed her to ride his coat tails into the political spotlight despite being "broke"....(That's some real comedy right there) ..but the rest??
I guess OMalley can claim he was once the Mayor of Baltimore (the 12th most dangerous city in America during his "leadership"), before becoming Maryland's Gov.
Bernie Birkenstock?? I guess if you like listening to his anti rich guy rants......no way the Dem billionaire elites allow him in the big picture despite being a career politician.
A neurosurgeon (who happens to be black), An optometrist,
A former CEO of a fortune 500 company (who happens to be a woman)
6 (current or former Governors), A self made billionaire businessman, 4 others with more legal experience in govt bureaucracy (Senate/House) than even Barack had prior to his run.
Compared to the Dems: Lincoln Chafee. Hillary Clinton. Martin O'Malley. Bernie Sanders.
Of course the favorite in the Dem bunch can claim to be victim of an habitual philandering husband which allowed her to ride his coat tails into the political spotlight despite being "broke"....(That's some real comedy right there) ..but the rest??
I guess OMalley can claim he was once the Mayor of Baltimore (the 12th most dangerous city in America during his "leadership"), before becoming Maryland's Gov.
Bernie Birkenstock?? I guess if you like listening to his anti rich guy rants......no way the Dem billionaire elites allow him in the big picture despite being a career politician.
Sad thing is hillary is still going. And I would rather have Barack over any that's running in 2016.
Plus Ben Carson is an Uncle Tom......worst then Don Lemon. Nothing but a rich Uncle Tom version of Al Sharpton. A rich Uncle Ruckas
Plus Ben Carson is an Uncle Tom......worst then Don Lemon. Nothing but a rich Uncle Tom version of Al Sharpton. A rich Uncle Ruckas
Listen to when he talks, instead of trying to uplift the black community, he routinely takes shots at his own people like he is ashamed to be black.
So instead of blaming other people he says take some personal responsibility. And that makes him a sellout Uncle Tom?
The black community should uplift themselves in order to be more like Dr. Carson.
This is why black folks can't get ahead and join the rest of America. If you are a smart black guy that become successful but believes different politically then you are an Uncle Tom.
Guys like Ben Carson should be a role model. Instead blacks want to look up to Lebron and Kobe. It is fine to admire and root for guys like Kobe. But, the reality is 99.99999% of these kids are not going to be in the NBA.
No there is a lot of rich successful black people who aren't athletes or entertainers and don't act like they aren't black and do things within the black community to uplift. Then you have these Rich too good to be black people like Dr.Carson
To be fair herdman 99.9999999% arent going to be world renowned pediatric neurosurgeons either, but your point remains. Everyone should look up to people like Carson and strive to be the best they can be at whatever they choose. To quote Martin Luther King Jr. "If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as a Michaelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, 'Here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.”
You sure are quite the fair and balanced commentator, aren't you?
So, you take a jab at Hillary for the actions of her husband. Yet, you avoid doing the same with Fiorina's personal life while attempting to somehow praise her being a Fortune 500 CEO which led to her being labeled as one of the worst tech CEOs in history.
Is it really a feather in her cap for being a Fortune 500 CEO who was responsible for 30,000 U.S. jobs being lost, cut the value of her company's stock in half, and was forced out due to incompetence?
You mock hillary's relationship, but don't point out that Carly failed after just a handful of years with her first marriage. Her daughter was a drunk, pill-popping madwoman who took her own life (on a side-note, I didn't realize until this morning that her daughter had committed suicide. That same daughter lived with me for a time in 2009 while she was going through some struggles. I've spent some time reading emails from both Carly and her daughter in 2009, just months before she took her own life. Sad situation.). But, you only call out Hillary for these things.
Has hillary ever had a job outside of government? Has she ever created a job or been an executive?
Yes, I'm pretty fair. Did Carly become the CEO of HP because of her husband's position of power, her broken marriage, or desire to play victim because of her daughters suicide? If Carly wanted to play the hapless, helpless victim because of her personal problems as an attempt to promote herself due to her personal issues I would be calling her out too. Had Hillary never married a charismatic politician from Arkansas who went on to be President, do you really think she would even be considered a Presidential contender??? Seriously??? LMAO.
Lets face it........HP hasn't been a stellar company for years. Many of the "improvements" seen in it's stock price under Mark Hurd (CEO following Carly's departure) were actually many of the strategies put in place during Carly's tenure (combined with the overall improvement of the Nasdaq market following the crash). Turning around a behemoth of a company like HP after the internet bubble busted took years and its still struggles today because of their reliance on staying with a dying printer business (that Carly actually wanted to move away from). Name me a major tech company that didn't lay off thousands of workers following the Nasdaq crash in 2000 (She took over HP in 1999). Her one major blunder was buying a deteriorating computer company called Compaq following the crash. Dell was blowing up.....she wanted to compete.........she lost that battle.
It seems most of Carly's critics tend to focus on her desire to be paid well as CEO while others lost their jobs. That indeed may be a fair criticism. But since you insist on fair and balanced.......I've yet to see the all caring, compassionate Clintons, go without a meal in the many years they have been in the public spotlight.
As to Fever's criticism of Ben Carson:
https://carsonscholars.org/
This rich "to good to be black" dude does more for his community than Fever ever will.
I might add, Hurd (CEO following Carly's departure) was also fired for various misconduct reasons..........so......HP management has clearly had its problems keeping the Hewlett heirs happy beyond Carly's tenure...(if we are going to be "fair" about it)
I actually hope he does run. I might have to actually watch the evening news again to see when he appears. He may prove to be more racially insensitive than Trump and more sexually harassing of women than Bill C. Throw in a little weeping and tearing up over the loss of his son and 1st wife & daughter for emotional marketing/campaigning purposes and you have the perfect Dem candidate for the typical liberal zombie voter. Let the real entertainment begin.
That's exactly what the Dem field needs really.........Another career politician who can claim his "accomplishment" in life was graduating from law school shortly before hitting the stump speeches for a career of living off of taxpayers *cough* public service *cough*. (Disclaimer: For fairness and balance requests......This applies to a several of the Repubs candidates too. One of the reasons I've never been a fan of any Presidential candidate who has little on their resume other than "law school" or "political candidate" as a career history.)
She worked her way up to be a partner at a law firm . . . the first female partner at that firm.
Did Hillary gain her power by any of those things, there have been 50 other First Ladies, yet none have had the political success Hillary has. There is a reason for that.
She is extremely intelligent; far brighter than bill, which nobody denies.
She would probably be making seven figures as a partner (if not managing partner) in a major firm. She would probably have never entered politics. But, that's irrelevant. If Georgie and Jeb bush's father wasn't a politician, do you think they would have ever been a president and governor? If ken Griffey jr.'s father wasn't a big league player, do you think junior ever would have been one?
Hillary has the personal and political experience to fit the position. It is meaningless of how or why she started on that path.
You're entirely clueless about Fiorina and HP. She was despised at every level of the company before any layoffs or bubble bursting. She tried changing the family culture of the company. She got rid of profit sharing for bonuses. She centralized all of the power. She was routinely booed at major functions by her own employees. She asked for employees to voluntarily take pay cuts in order to avoid being laid-off, only to terminate them shortly after many agreed to the cuts.
You think her one major fault was buying compaq? Her own family wouldn't even shortchange her that much.
you feel that most of her critics have the most problem with her trying to get paid handsomely while employees lost jobs? Are you serious? That was one of many, many major complaints, which wasn't even close to the biggest gripe.
But, your argument gets worse. HP had a CEO who was driving the company into the ground. You'll find little resistance to that statement about Fiorina. That's why so many analysts and other business leaders claim her as one of the worst tech CEOs ever. Her firing was justifiable. Then, five years later, Hurd was forced out. Again, the reasons were justifiable. The guy was using tens of thousands of company dollars, other employees, and lying to the company about having a part-time female employee fly all over the world so he could interview her for two years straight . . . while also doing everything conceivable to fvck her.
Going through two CEOs over an 11 year span isn't that out of the norm. Both of those were justifiable firings and is hardly a reflection on the board not being able to keep the HP relatives happy. Trying to use hurd's resignation as an argument that it is hard to satisfy the founder's family, thus making fiorina's ouster less justifiable, is as poor of an argument as you could present.
Hell, there are leadership books used in college master's level programs that lambaste Fiorina for her poor leadership style.
Last edited:
Hell, there are leadership books used in college master's level programs that lambaste Fiorina for her poor leadership style.[/QUOTE]
Colleges tend to be bastions of liberal ideologies. Of course they're going to lambaste her.
Colleges tend to be bastions of liberal ideologies. Of course they're going to lambaste her.
Colleges tend to be bastions of liberal ideologies. Of course they're going to lambaste her.[/QUOTE]
So the guy's teaching are blasting her. Makes sense.
Yes, Hillary gained her power and notoriety because she was married to Bill Clinton (which was my point). Otherwise she most likely would have been a partner in a law firm. She had no other experience beyond being a lawyer and a spouse of a political figure prior to being GIVEN her power and authority. Even the Bush Bros had careers with major leadership roles before politics. Hell, she was practically handed her Senate seat after simply being a First Lady. Which is the over riding point of my statements. I'm not knocking her initiative at attempting to keep the power and "influence" she was handed because of Bill. That indeed takes a level of effort. Unfortunately that doesn't make a leader effective either. Most experts, analysts would admit she was a complete disaster at the state department while being Secretary of State.
Unfortunately in the real world Rifle, layoffs, bonus cuts, pay cuts, and unhappy employees happen. Especially following the Nasdaq crash in 2000 and recession that followed. (Again she didn't get the job until 1999). I really don't care why Hurd was fired. The fact remains, up until his firing the same analyst, experts, professors which lambasted Carly, were touting Mark Hurd's success at turning around HP (stock) even though he was doing nothing strategically different from Carly. He was a man in the man's world of business CEOs and was given the benefit of the doubt up until he let his dick start making decisions. Had the stock price gone up under Carly (name a stock price that went up during the tech bust), the same biz experts and analysts would have touted those benefit cuts, layoffs, and culture change as a success ...as they usually do.
I generally could care less about what a college professor or college textbook thinks about business. Unless you have owned, managed, or led a business or organization, their theories and opinions mean jack shit in most cases.
I don't know if you are just extremely biased, like my first guess was earlier in the thread, or if you really have no clue about modern political history.
You claim Hillary gained her initial political power due to being married to Bill. You then claim that the bush brothers had careers with major leadership roles before politics. Do you care to discuss jeb's career with major leadership roles before he was GIVEN the secretary of commerce job by the Florida governor immediately after George Bush, then the VP of the country, went on the campaign trail to help the Florida governor get elected? Here, I'll help you:
Shortly after graduating from Texas with his bachelor's, he started working at a bank. At the age of 24, the bank had him help open a new branch in South America; a nice position at that age, but hardly a "major leadership role" in what would happen just a few years later. A couple of years after helping open the branch, he started working for his dad's campaign. Shortly after his dad was elected VP, bush moved his family from Texas to Florida. He started selling real estate. After doing that for three years, he took over as chairman of the Republican Party for a county in Florida. In his second year of doing that, his VP father came to Florida to help get the governor elected. Immediately after being elected, the Florida governor appointed Jeb as the secretary of commerce even though he had no experience running a major organization, let alone a business, and his only political position had been as a county chairman for a political party for two years. The appointment wreaked of a huge political favor. And you want to say Hillary was handed her power but Jeb wasn't? By far, Hillary's education and success in the private sector trumped jeb's at that point in their careers.
And in the real world, CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are expected to mitigate those losses during times of turmoil. Fiorina wasn't blamed for the financial crisis. She was blamed for doing the absolute worst she could have done handling it.
There were plenty of other major tech CEOs who were able to weather the storm. Fiorina couldn't because she was doing far more damage to the company than the greater outside forces.
Of course you don't care why he was fired because it goes against your pathetic theory that was used to defend Fiorina; "oh, it's just hard for anyone to keep the family of one of the HP founders' happy." The reasons each were let go were for entirely different, yet justifiable, reasons.
To say Hurd was doing nothing strategically different than Fiorina shows an overwhelming lack of business knowledge or a purposeful deceit of information you're trying to present.
Hurd's leadership style was entirely different than fiorona's. Leadership style is essential in determining the morale and success of an organization during troubled times. They were on opposite ends of the spectrum.
In terms of business strategy, I previously mentioned how Fiorina immediately and strongly centralized everything under her in a power grab. One of hurd's first moves was to overwhelmingly decentralize the company. One of HP's biggest failures was not meeting client timeframes and resolving issues for those clients. Hurd took the tens of thousands of employees in their salesforce, which was the largest part of their company, and divided them up into different sectors based on the products they were selling instead of centralizing them as Fiorina had done. It had immediate positive results for HP.
The hypocrisy in your argument about Hillary vs. the bush brothers was entertaining enough. But, then your hypocrisy got even better. You argued that most political experts and analysts agree that Hillary was a failure as Secretary of State. Then, instead of accepting what business experts and analysts agree with regarding Fiorina, you dismiss the opinions of those experts.
Pick-and-choose, pick-and-choose.
Tell us that one about you being fair and balanced again.
For someone who claims to expertise in basic comprehension you keep making my point for me. I just wish you would pick and choose to stay with my first point as I stated it.
First, I at no time ever claimed I thought Carly was viewed as an exceptional CEO by all. You seem incessant on discussing that point. In fact I admitted some of her detractors had legitimate points for disagreeing with her business decisions (Compaq acquisition). The overall fact still remains. Carly moved up the ranks through the business world to become a CEO of a Fortune 500 company without relying on the name of her husband (my original assertion about Hillary-which you essentially agreed with me when asserting "she would probably be a law partner").
2nd. You continue to attempt to argue points I wasn't making. I wasn't arguing anything about the Bush Bros.until you brought them up. I never said Jeb didn't receive a favor. As you now point out (which is what I said) Jeb (and Georgie) worked in positions of leadership and business before going into the political arena. In Jebs case, Banking and Real Estate. Thanks for making my point.
3rd. My point of "analyst and experts" bashing Hillary's leadership wasn't hypocrisy. I was simply mocking you for using "analyst and experts" (or professors) as your "proof" of a mismanagement debate that had absolutely nothing to do with my original point in my first entry in this thread but you keep trying to make. My main point of course being...dem candidates (like Hillary) have little other experience outside of being career politicians (and spouses).
the problem is your attempt at changing history. you had a better chance of doing it from 10-30 years ago like you previously tried instead of doing it relating to what you have posted in the last 24 hours. you do realize you can edit your own posts, right? that would at least muddy the waters a little bit and give you a tiny chance.
no, i am incessant on pointing out your multiple hypocritical judgments. this started by you saying you didnt understand why people mocked the republican candidates. you made references to fiorina, jeb, and senators. lets look at each one and the arguments you presented:
first, you mocked hillary's personal life. i showed you that fiorina didnt have an exemplary record in that category. you countered that by saying she didnt use those things to help promote her jobs, and that hillary simply has her position due to being married to bill, which is exactly how jeb has his position now (from political favor starting him).
you claim that it is a credit to fiorina that she was a fortune 500 CEO. fine, no issue with that. but, if you only want to look at the actual title/position, and not the job done in that position, you must also put a feather in hillary's cap for being the secretary of state. however, you didnt. you claimed that she was an awful secretary of state, so that experience should not be an argument on behalf of her. again, no problem. but, you then must take away fiorina's fortune 500 CEO title because she was awful in that position (regardless of how ridiculous your arguments are otherwise). oh, but then you claimed that fiorina actually earned her way up to being a CEO, so some credit must be given because hillary was simply handed her political start. but, that would throw away your entire argument for jeb.
you didnt mention anything about the bush brothers? you defended the republican candidates by mentioning the number of them who are/were governors. that includes jeb, so you did mention him. so, how can you count jeb knowing his political career started only due to a political favor yet, at the same time, disparage hillary because her initial political career can be argued as being the result of a political favor? it is another of your hypocritical arguments.
thanks for making your point? wait: are you really trying to say that jeb having worked in real estate for a few years and banking for a few years was a big enough leadership role to be in the position of secretary of commerce? that is your point, that jeb had major leadership roles previously? hillary was once the recess monitor for her first grade class.
you claimed that jeb had "major leadership roles." helping to open a bank branch is considered a "major leadership role" in your eyes fit to be secretary of commerce? christ. hillary's yale JD and being a partner in a law firm is far more impressive than jeb's BA and few years each in banking and real estate.
and it just doesnt hold water if you want to compare hillary to fiorina (and eventually jeb when you started to use your arguments against hillary). hillary's non-political experiences (ivy league JD and law firm partner) far outweigh jeb's non-political experiences (a BA and a few years each of being in banking and in real estate). that is asinine.
fiorina has no political success. she successfully worked her way up to being a fortune 500 CEO in which she failed miserably. hillary has a yale JD and became a partner in a firm. besides all of her roles as first lady, she has also been a senator and the secretary of state. you can claim she failed in either of those roles, but the only difference you fan find is that fiorina actually earned the right to fail in her position while hillary was supposedly just handed the role she failed in (in your eyes) . . . which leads to the comparison with jeb, who was also handed a position.
you cant separate your criticisms of hillary while avoiding them with fiorina and jeb.
I'm on my phone so responding to this would take too much time. I'll try and make it brief. So basically lets summarize what you just stated:
Someone has earned the qualifications to be president of the United States over another because they earned a law degree from an Ivy League school, became a partner in a law firm (in Arkansas no less a year after her husband is elected gov.), became a First Lady on a state and national level because of who she married, is handed a senate seat for a couple years because of her husband (in a state she can't even claim to have lived or worked in, beyond fundraising trips) bombs out on her first presidential run, beaten by a guy most didn't know existed a year or so before- Obama having only been a senator for less than 1 term (talk about failure), given a sec of state job by the man that beat her (where she again showed further incompetence, resulting in a "resignation"-no doubt to quell some of the illegality of some of her practices while in that role that was harming the image of the man that beat her and to "write" a book no one wanted to buy and read)
VS.
A guy who worked in the private sector, opening an international branch of a bank (I'm taking your word for it- haven't looked it up), real estate industry, also given the opportunity (due to political connections) to run and actually LEAD state level political groups and national level campaigns, (prior to his Sec of Commerce job) given the appointment of sec of commerce because of a connection (must of worked out well-Florida commerce is doing pretty well overall), succeeded in that role to the point that the voters for the entire state of Florida elected him Gov twice where he still is viewed as generally a success as a leader for his state.
VS.
Another female who came up through the ranks, starting at the bottom at AT&T, later earning 2 masters degrees from both Maryland and MIT, leading divisions of that company, successfully enough to be hired on as the CEO of a Fortune 500 company WITHOUT needing the name of her husband to do it, and was then fired for failing in her strategy for changing the direction of the company during the Dot-Com bust. But still being elected to serve on multiple corporate boards after her firing.
IMO that's fair and balanced. And IMO the strengths still fall to those that have either come up from the bottom and worked at various low level jobs (even Jeb seems to have done that according to your mocking of his private sector experience) before attaining their leadership roles over another who simply took advantage of her husbands name and then still can't seem to muster up a single claim of success beyond, I got a law degree from Ivy League and my last name is Clinton.
Someone has earned the qualifications to be president of the United States over another because they earned a law degree from an Ivy League school, became a partner in a law firm (in Arkansas no less a year after her husband is elected gov.), became a First Lady on a state and national level because of who she married, is handed a senate seat for a couple years because of her husband (in a state she can't even claim to have lived or worked in, beyond fundraising trips) bombs out on her first presidential run, beaten by a guy most didn't know existed a year or so before- Obama having only been a senator for less than 1 term (talk about failure), given a sec of state job by the man that beat her (where she again showed further incompetence, resulting in a "resignation"-no doubt to quell some of the illegality of some of her practices while in that role that was harming the image of the man that beat her and to "write" a book no one wanted to buy and read)
VS.
A guy who worked in the private sector, opening an international branch of a bank (I'm taking your word for it- haven't looked it up), real estate industry, also given the opportunity (due to political connections) to run and actually LEAD state level political groups and national level campaigns, (prior to his Sec of Commerce job) given the appointment of sec of commerce because of a connection (must of worked out well-Florida commerce is doing pretty well overall), succeeded in that role to the point that the voters for the entire state of Florida elected him Gov twice where he still is viewed as generally a success as a leader for his state.
VS.
Another female who came up through the ranks, starting at the bottom at AT&T, later earning 2 masters degrees from both Maryland and MIT, leading divisions of that company, successfully enough to be hired on as the CEO of a Fortune 500 company WITHOUT needing the name of her husband to do it, and was then fired for failing in her strategy for changing the direction of the company during the Dot-Com bust. But still being elected to serve on multiple corporate boards after her firing.
IMO that's fair and balanced. And IMO the strengths still fall to those that have either come up from the bottom and worked at various low level jobs (even Jeb seems to have done that according to your mocking of his private sector experience) before attaining their leadership roles over another who simply took advantage of her husbands name and then still can't seem to muster up a single claim of success beyond, I got a law degree from Ivy League and my last name is Clinton.
Last edited:
Sharpton does a decent job as a comedian in a few movies as long as it's a small part.Take Sharpton over Bruce ;it: jenner
do you need to go back to read your original post on what i called you out on? you ridiculed hillary for issues in her personal life, while not doing the same with fiorina. then, you faulted hillary for getting a start in politics due to family connections while not acknowledging jeb did the same exact thing. fair and balanced? hardly.
your hypocrisy was called out on those points. then, you had to attempt to bring up entirely different things to make your argument. that is fine, but to anyone who has followed this thread, they can see that you have deviated from your original, hypocritical, and unfair comments in the post i called you out on.
you think this is fair and balanced:
giving more credit to a person who worked multiple low-level jobs, worked their way up, and failed at their highest position while having never held a political office (after dropping out of law school to become a receptionist and then teach english overseas) . . . or a person who worked their way up to being the first female partner in a particular law firm, got started in politics due to a family connection, then went on to serve office in two very high political positions; and regardless of success or failure in those positions, still is able to be the leading candidate.
come on.
now, you are just making shit up.
After graduating from Stanford University in 1976 with a bachelor’s degree in medieval history and philosophy, she attended law school at the University of California, Los Angeles, but dropped out after only one semester. She later studied at the University of Maryland, College Park (M.B.A., 1980), and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management (M.S., 1989).
No. No need to make shit up about her education. Its right here. http://www.britannica.com/biography/Carly-Fiorina
And no, I haven't deviated. Hillary Clinton has what she has because she married a popular politician that actually won elections that put her in places to step in without real effort or work beyond being a first lady. Her "partnership" in the law firm you keep pointing to as some marvelous accomplishment wasn't even "earned" until after Bill won his first Gov. election in Arkansas. I'm not surprised there either. Her whole political career has been "favors" from one job to the next. (Even Jeb actually had to win elections after receiving his initial favor into the political world).
When Carly starts using her personal life challenges as a reason to earn favor or sympathy with voters....you might have a point.... I took you actually telling us about her broken marriage and her daughters suicide. But until then, most on here are probably smart enough to know the difference, while chuckling at any of your claims of hypocrisy. (The real hypocrisy of course is listening to either Clinton deride the wealthy only to learn how they live while being paid 275k for a 15 min speech with a net worth close to 100m.)
And yes, I believe more credit should be given to someone who started out at the bottom of one company, earned more education (than just a JD), worked their way up the ladder, and was later hired to be the first female CEO for a DJIA listed company (without the name of her husband or family member). It is a remarkable accomplishment and testament to her intelligence and work ethic. There have been some pretty incredible leaders who have been fired from CEO positions over the years for "failing"(Steve Jobs comes to mind). But lets please not forget....Even the mighty Hillary "failed" (after her first presidential run). Unfortunately with most lifelong, unelected (Dem) bureaucrats like Hillary, "getting fired" isn't an option. We have to wait until they finally quit to find out what kind of disaster they really were in their position (that was handed to them)...........
As Clinton left the State Department, her “reset button” moment with Russia had turned into an embarrassment. The world was about to witness the first violence by a major power in contesting European territory since Hitler’s tanks rolled into Poland and France.
Clinton's departure also saw a Middle East meltdown that subsequently chased American diplomats and advisers out of Yemen and Libya. Al-Qaida on the Arabian Peninsula, the group most likely to attack U.S. targets, now has a base of operations in Yemen. The Islamic State group continues to terrorize Syria and Iraq. Traditional alliances are fracturing, as well. Secretary of State Clinton floated the idea of bringing Saudi Arabia under the U.S. nuclear umbrella to protect it against Iran. Saudi Arabia ignored her and may be preparing to buy atom bombs from Pakistan, promising to spark a proliferation nightmare. Egypt, frustrated by the administration’s admonishments and restrictions, is now shopping for arms from Russia, effectively reversing its Camp David Accords-era defection from Moscow’s patronage.
[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on Hillary Clinton]
And, of course, U.S. relations with the only democracy in the region – Israel – now has all the rancor of an especially nasty divorce.
Around the world, the Obama-Clinton foreign policy has seen chunks of American influence calve off and float away like icebergs in August.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...-secretary-of-state-works-against-her-in-2016
Remarkably, I didn't even have to mention Benghazi..........
Last edited:
Rifle, never saw you miss a point so badly, but I figure you're not really missing it, you just feel like arguing.
Similar threads
