Originally Posted by Guest

You may say racist and feminist crap from now until the cows come home - but you know the poster was 100 percent right.

Men - and not usually young men - do make the core of the Republican National Party. They would not make it a guarantee win for a female to be President even if for their own party. This goes against many of the ideals of the party.

How very omnipotent and all knowing. So the democratic party is the only party for women?
Your opinion; be happy in your dated thoughts that just happen to be dated.

Originally Posted by Guest

You may say racist and feminist crap from now until the cows come home - but you know the poster was 100 percent right.

Men - and not usually young men - do make the core of the Republican National Party. They would not make it a guarantee win for a female to be President even if for their own party. This goes against many of the ideals of the party.

Do you mean the ability of guranteeing a woman to become POTUS like the party started out to do in 2008 and DID NOT?
Selective memory to make a point perhaps.

Originally Posted by Guest

Carly Fiorina may be extremely qualified to be President - but she will not get on the Presidential ticket. Can anyone believe that the old white men who run the Republican Party would nominate a woman for President when the Democrats also have a woman candidate - thus guaranteeing a FEMALE President?

They are scared enough of a woman President after a black President that they (old white men) could not have anyone but a rich white man (Romney) run. Cruz is Hispanic and they could not take that. Rubio is Hispanic and they could not take that. J.Bush is married to a Hispanic and they could not take that.

Well, old dudes, belly up to the bar for your Geritol. Looks like Mr. 47% is your candidate again and will lose again.

Same old racist garbage and anti white male animus ... at some point, you are going to offend enough of us such that we stop being so tolerant of the continued assaults and PC tripe

At the same time, it serves to continually illustrate the pure rage and often unstable emotional condition so many liberals seem to have in common.

The clear implication by the way, is Carly is running for VP and she will probably get it.

Originally Posted by Guest

Do you mean the ability of guranteeing a woman to become POTUS like the party started out to do in 2008 and DID NOT?
Selective memory to make a point perhaps.

Yes, apparently the Democrat party ... at least in 2008 ... was highly prejudiced against saggy old white women, and especially one who is so dishonest and non-genuine that even the village idiot could figure it out

Originally Posted by Guest

The gang of six can't come up with anything other than what they find under rocks for a favorite son/ daughter for prez. They haven't figured out how to gerrymander the national election and are scared. You outta be.

You sound like you've just been released from the mental ward ...

Originally Posted by Guest

More about WHO she is:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Carly_Fiorina.aspx

Here's a challenge for all Hillary supporters

1. Let's all agree to a mutual and temporary cease fire on the snarky comments

2. But, you guys/gals then need to write up something reasonable wherein you cite Hillary's accomplishments in a manner similar to the Carly link above so that we can all read, learn and compare

3. Is this something you can or are willing to do?

Maybe I'm missing something, what makes Carly a reasonable candidate for POTUS. She is clearly bright and articulate. She rose thru the glass ceiling to reach CEO of HP. In that job she created so much animosity within the corporation that she was ousted by HP's board of directors and upon her firing wall street responded with a big jump in HP's stock price reflected the investor view that she was bad for the business. Since then she ran a bad campaign against Sen. Boxer replete with demon sheep. She has no governmental experience, no legislative experience, no politically successful experience. She didn't even vote in most elections which tells me she didn't much care who won. She did explain in 2008 that Palin was not qualified to run a business but that didn't make her unqualified to run the USA. How is that if Carly was qualified to poorly run HP, that translates into successfully managing the USA?

Originally Posted by Guest

It's almost getting embarrassing, isn't it, as the GOP turns over every rock looking for a candidate to run against Hillary Clinton?

What's embarrassing is that Hilary Clinton is the best that the Democrats can come up with.

Originally Posted by Guest

Maybe I'm missing something, what makes Carly a reasonable candidate for POTUS. She is clearly bright and articulate. She rose thru the glass ceiling to reach CEO of HP. In that job she created so much animosity within the corporation that she was ousted by HP's board of directors and upon her firing wall street responded with a big jump in HP's stock price reflected the investor view that she was bad for the business. Since then she ran a bad campaign against Sen. Boxer replete with demon sheep. She has no governmental experience, no legislative experience, no politically successful experience. She didn't even vote in most elections which tells me she didn't much care who won. She did explain in 2008 that Palin was not qualified to run a business but that didn't make her unqualified to run the USA. How is that if Carly was qualified to poorly run HP, that translates into successfully managing the USA?

I must have missed something ... what was it again by way of accomplishment and qualifications that enabled Obama to manage things?

Originally Posted by Guest

They haven't figured out how to gerrymander the national election.

Interesting and worthy of its own thread. Actually our national elections are very much gerrymandered in its own way. The vote value of a person in a small state is hugely more important than one in a large state. Gerrymandering is done to create safe districts. We have at least 40 of our 50 states as safe districts for one party or the other. There are a few swing states. If we instead went to a truly national election by abolishing the electoral college, then every voter in every state would have an equal say in the outcome. In its most extreme, a person could win the Presidency with 22% of the votes cast. The Orbital: Electoral college shenanigans, ctd: lose the Presidency with 78.05% of the vote
As of 2008 a voter in Wyoming had over 3 times the effective vote of one in Pennsylvania.

Originally Posted by Guest

Interesting and worthy of its own thread. Actually our national elections are very much gerrymandered in its own way. The vote value of a person in a small state is hugely more important than one in a large state. Gerrymandering is done to create safe districts. We have at least 40 of our 50 states as safe districts for one party or the other. There are a few swing states. If we instead went to a truly national election by abolishing the electoral college, then every voter in every state would have an equal say in the outcome. In its most extreme, a person could win the Presidency with 22% of the votes cast. The Orbital: Electoral college shenanigans, ctd: lose the Presidency with 78.05% of the vote
As of 2008 a voter in Wyoming had over 3 times the effective vote of one in Pennsylvania.

Yes, interesting. Why don't you start a thread to give this topic what it's due while at the same time not getting this one off course

Originally Posted by Guest

Maybe I'm missing something, what makes Carly a reasonable candidate for POTUS. She is clearly bright and articulate. She rose thru the glass ceiling to reach CEO of HP. In that job she created so much animosity within the corporation that she was ousted by HP's board of directors and upon her firing wall street responded with a big jump in HP's stock price reflected the investor view that she was bad for the business. Since then she ran a bad campaign against Sen. Boxer replete with demon sheep. She has no governmental experience, no legislative experience, no politically successful experience. She didn't even vote in most elections which tells me she didn't much care who won. She did explain in 2008 that Palin was not qualified to run a business but that didn't make her unqualified to run the USA. How is that if Carly was qualified to poorly run HP, that translates into successfully managing the USA?

Here we have a case of genuine female achievement with Carly Fiorina ... rising from the ranks of secretary to CEO. And you start harping and criticizing??.

I can only conclude you must be one of those old, white Republican males who hates women and other minorities. I find your comments offensive. Therefore, and in accordance with current day PC protocols, I must respectfully ask you to suppress your free speech.

Originally Posted by Guest

Maybe I'm missing something, what makes Carly a reasonable candidate for POTUS. She is clearly bright and articulate. She rose thru the glass ceiling to reach CEO of HP. In that job she created so much animosity within the corporation that she was ousted by HP's board of directors and upon her firing wall street responded with a big jump in HP's stock price reflected the investor view that she was bad for the business. Since then she ran a bad campaign against Sen. Boxer replete with demon sheep. She has no governmental experience, no legislative experience, no politically successful experience. She didn't even vote in most elections which tells me she didn't much care who won. She did explain in 2008 that Palin was not qualified to run a business but that didn't make her unqualified to run the USA. How is that if Carly was qualified to poorly run HP, that translates into successfully managing the USA?

All one has to do is look at the encmbent and that should end what kinds of qualifications it takes to run and be elected! A good (supposedly according to some) talker...PROMISER.

And instead of questioning Fiorina, how about answering the very good request above....how about a Clinton resume' and accomplishments.

You are a troll. Do us all a favor and don't post again as you have nothing intelligent to add to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Guest

Carly Fiorina may be extremely qualified to be President - but she will not get on the Presidential ticket. Can anyone believe that the old white men who run the Republican Party would nominate a woman for President when the Democrats also have a woman candidate - thus guaranteeing a FEMALE President?

They are scared enough of a woman President after a black President that they (old white men) could not have anyone but a rich white man (Romney) run. Cruz is Hispanic and they could not take that. Rubio is Hispanic and they could not take that. J.Bush is married to a Hispanic and they could not take that.

Well, old dudes, belly up to the bar for your Geritol. Looks like Mr. 47% is your candidate again and will lose again.

Originally Posted by Guest

What's embarrassing is that Hilary Clinton is the best that the Democrats can come up with.

That she's a winner!