Fully agree ... Rubio/Fiorina would be an excellent ticket.

Also would like Walker/Fiorina.

Rubio is a better speaker and more knowledgeable of foreign policy. Walker, however, is the better leader and unafraid to make the tough decisions.

I would have to disagree with having Fiorina on the Republican ticket. No experience whatsoever in government and no matter your feelings on career politicians, that is how things get done in Washington. She would be useless. Chances are that having her on the ticket would be a similar disaster as when McCain chose Palin. That cost the election.

If what you claim were even close to being true then corporate America would always hire from within.

They do not. For very good reasons. The skills of leadership, responsibility, accountability and promises kept are applicable to any organization. The true leaders tend to hire experts to cover those area that complement their collective strengths.

To propose that a career crony politician like Clinton (and most of the others) would do better for America because they know how the system works is a myth. They only know how to perpetuate from within the ineffective system they are a product of and will not....ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT....upset the apple cart to make things work better.

Career politicians are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to doing something different to make things better. They only know the status quo. The will not clean house and get rid of what does not work as there is too much quid quo pro and back room dealings to resolve what is owed.

You are wrong. If you want change.....vote for the best possible candidate with the best credentials.....not from inside the WAshington establishment.

I certainly did not say to vote for Clinton. Get that thought out of your head.

As for corporate America hiring from within. Yes, they do hire from within corporate America - not necessarily from within the same corporation but someone who has corporate experience. They will not hire a lawn service guy to run The New York Times.

Yes, in my opinion, it is best to have a leader in Washington who knows how things are done and it DOES take some backroom dealings and some quid pro quo.

Fiorina may be smart just as Carson is an excellent doctor but neither are electable candidates. Count on Bush, Rubio, or Christie!

Carly Fiorina Is Right
 

[B][/B

Our political system needs to be re-worked because its obvious we are electing and re-electing the wrong people too often.

We can agree that experience like most things is a double edge sword but in the case of Congress it has created a laziness and complacency that we can no longer abide.

If the American voters could get a national referendum, which is highly unlikely, it should establish only a two 4 year terms for both Chambers of Congress. Secondly, there are far too many lawyers in Congress and if you know anything about lawyers its that they love to add laws to the books.
America is strangling with regulations that have created such a bureaucratic bloat and all that goes with it.

In the first instance I say 8 years because when forming this Union our founders were cognizant of the possibility of American becoming a monarchy. So as a result a President serves only 8 years max. Yet we allow yahoos like Harry Reid to dominate becoming faux monarchs . It would also help, but I am sure not eliminate the influence peddling

In the second instance we need a cross section of professional from every sector to have a proper balance of thinking creating and implementing
For instance Dr. Tom Coburn contributions were positive, sensible with little unintentional consequences

Carly Fiorina is spot on with her complaint of career politicians. As a sidebar aren't any of you upset that they pass laws that well won't apply to them

Being a member of Congress should be a stepping stone in their careers but not their careers.

Personal Best Regards:

100% agree with you. Something has got to change in this country. Nothing is working as it currently stands and I don't think much will change, be it Democrat or Republican that is elected, because of all of the influence pedaling. Speaking of cross section of professionals, this was my biggest beef with healthcare being discussed on the federal level - both the ACA and the Medicare Part D implementation of the former administration. How many healthcare professionals were included in those discussions? I would venture to say few, if any. I think that someone like Carly Fiorina would have enough sense to know that you don't discuss big issues like that without expert insight and involvement. Unfortunately for all of us, Washington as it stands today doesn't appear to work that way.

Not just appear....they do in fact not work that way.

And it becomes more and more evident, they have lost sight of their function....represent the needs of those who elected them. Tpriorities are the special interest groups and ANY organization that will get them re-elected.

Washington politics...the people elected and re-elected by we the people are the perfect case study for ineffective operation. No responsibility...no accountability...lie....cheat...steal....lecherero us...self centered leeches.
Where else can one have a job like this? How and why do we the people continue to accept and re-elect incompetence?

The rants on TOTV do absolutely no good at all. If you do want to have political changes made, get involved with one of the political clubs in The Villages and have them get some ELECTABLE candidate put forward. Have that candidate make appearances at different events and have a platform that will excite others to vote for them instead of the incumbent.

What part of the "non-serious troll" post is incorrect?

She is now poling at between 1 and 2%.


Really - if you have nothing to add other than calling a poster a "non-serious person and a troll" take a look in the mirror to see a real troll.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination

You are a troll.

The entire post was trollng.

Perhaps your percentage is correct, and perhaps she will not be on any debate.

HOWEVER, the attitude conveyed made it clear about you.

Your continuing mockery of the largest and most watched news channel in the world, because YOU do not agree with how they present their shows.

And then, of course the customary and it appears mandatory personal slam that your group seems to love...."What color is the sky in your world?"

A poster makes a comment and is greeted with your arrogant sarcasm and then you need to take them down again with this comment "Really - if you have nothing to add other than calling a poster a "non-serious person and a troll" take a look in the mirror to see a real troll."

NOW, let us see what post was made to begin you little rant of self importance...oh, he/she said this...."A debate between Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina would absolutely be allowed. All Fiorina has to do is win the republican nomination for President of the United States. Millions of people would watch such a debate.

THAT was the full and complete post that you replied to, and you deny that you and the rest of the cronies are not trolls. This person made a statement which did not even make fun of your candidate as you did his/hers, but as with your group...you sure showed them.

No, you ARE A TROLL !!!!!

You used the term "faux news". It is a worn out and pathetic. That makes you a non-serious person and a troll.

What - no comment about Carly's polling numbers?

Trolls are really losing it.

Since post #4, most have acknowledged and discussed, YET......

If only you had anything of substance to offer instead of trolling. Are there not other web sites you can try and destroy !

Please control yourself and try sticking to the topic.

I really don't care what her polling numbers are. As much as you try to deflect, it is obvious to all that you are a troll when you use pathetic language like "faux news".

YES - that is exactly what I came on to this forum to post. If I had to vote today I would definitely support a Rubio/Fiorina ticket. Rubio is young and energetic and from all I have seen has certainly done his homework. Not only does he say what needs to be done, but how he would do it. Fiorina is a former executive that understands the importance of being proactive rather then reactive and 8 years as VP would certainly groom her to be President.

That sounds like a good plan in order to win the popular vote in a presidential election for the first time since 1988. How many years is that? Oh yeah, it will be 28 years in 2016.

How do you figure that? You might want to do a little research before posting incorrect information in the future.

She does not do research. Simply posts what her websites tell her is true.

Yes, like Think Progress ... she seems to use that demented site a lot. I'm afraid it's starting to rub off on her too :(

No, the old line leaders of the Regressives will not allow a young Cuban American and a woman to be their P and VP candidates. That would be forward thinking.

Look for Bush and Walker to be the candidates. They are politicians with some influence in Washington.

However, they will still get beaten by the Progressive machine. Just fact, no arguing about it.

High school pep rally quality after mega dose of X-X-X koolaid.

I wonder what you would have left to say if you did not include a racist, bigoted, name calling, labeling catharsis.
About as effective as .....nyah-nyah-nahya-nan-yah.

And the old line progressives will allow an old crony dishonest woman wanna be annointed to be their candidate? That would be forward thinking?

Wow! Drink Sanka, dude!

I stated that the old-line leaders of the GOP would not have their party represented by a young Cuban-American or by a woman. These are not the demographics that represent Republicans.

They would best be served by Bush and Walker.

However, I said, the Progressive movement will beat them.

Nothing racist was said, nothing bigoted. The opposite of Progressive is Regressive, isn't it?

No, Carly Fiorina is not a Progressive!:evil6:

Please, all your posts.....no not fair...MOST of your posts always include sarcasm, animosity and no facts. Your repition of your original post is a lot off from what you said originally

Do you disagree with me that a young Cuban-American and a woman are not the demographics of the GOP?

Do you disagree with me that Bush and Walker would better serve the Republicans than Rubio and Fiorina?

Do you disagree with me that at this time it looks as though the Democrat choice of Mrs. Clinton would win over any Republican in the field?

My point was the TONE of your posts, not the content.

If you think people can seriously consider your point of view after reading insults or sarcasm, THAT might be something for you to ponder.

1. I, for me, will not look at ethnicity, race or color when considering. Obviously this is important to you, but not me. Nor, I might add,do I think either party nor most adult voters without some weighted motivation.

2. Long way to go. I, just me, will wait until debates are over and then look at who is still standing.

3. I do not agree, Ms. Clinton has one good thing...name recognition. She also brings a ton of baggage with her. That baggage will need to be addressed, as she refuses to do it now.

It never gets old listening to the party of old people (GOP) calling Hillary Clinton OLD.

While I did not post that comment, and find that kind of adjectives a bit objectionable, it did prompt me to investigate a bit.

AGES OF DECLARED CANDIDATES FOR 2016 ( I rounded the ages but the link carries it out)

Sanders. 75
Biden. 74
Webb. 70
Trump. 70
Clinton. 69
Perry. 66
Carson. 65
Kasich. 65
Bush. 63
Chaffee. 63
Florida. 62
Graham. 61
Huckabee. 61
Santorum. 58
Christie. 54
Paul. 54
Omalley. 54
Walker. 49
Cruz. 46
Rubio. 45
Jindal. 45

Democracy in Action P2016 - Ages of Potential 2016 Presidential Candidates on Inauguration Day Jan. 2017

Just for info

I apologize..I erred in typing, or my iPad made me do it (good thing nobody reads these) but where it lists FLORIDA as being 62 years of age on Inauguration Day, it should be FIORINA.

And the democrats are the party of young people? :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

There are young folks, in their 60's, that look and act older and there are some in their 70's and 80's who look and behave younger.

Why do some jump to offense when the adjective old is used and readily accept the other adjective....young without similar reaction?

OLD is the adjective of use by the trolls on here when speaking of anyone who is a Republican. Along with Tea Party members....white sheet wearers...racist....whatever works.

Those words allow them to ignore real issues presented here.

Could not agree more in the case of posters referring to Hillary Clinton as old. Hopefully she'll pick a young VP, possibly a younger black man with presidential experience who will be looking for work come January 2017.

I won't take the bait.........I won't take the bait.......I won't take the bait......

How could two political liabilities equate to anything near a win.