2016 elections - because it's never too early

[DGuller]

It is DG talking about politics, and about a Republican. I am not saying he is not truthful, but what he posts is driven by the outcome he desires, not by any kind of objective evaluation of the candidate.

Yes, you always know what I'm thinking, and why I'm thinking it.  There is no possibility that I have superior critical thinking skills, more mature understanding of how politics of anything works, and an ability to spot lies with statistics.  If you and I have a different take on some things, it must be because my political preferences are clouding my judgment while you are able to keep your rationality.

[Valmy]

I'm not being a Fiorina schill here.  It's just to say that looking solely at her time as HP CEO is missing a big part of the picture.

True. I was only reacting to her dishonesty when addressing her time at HP. What she has been up to since then I have no idea. I am not going to look deeply into it unless she is still in the running when it comes time for me to vote/caucus. The last time a Republican Primary got to Texas without being wrapped up is...um...maybe when Taft and Roosevelt were fighting over it and the only party members were federal appointees.

It is not like Texas is an important Republican state or anything, no reason to seriously consult the party here.

[The Brain]

It is DG talking about politics, and about a Republican. I am not saying he is not truthful, but what he posts is driven by the outcome he desires, not by any kind of objective evaluation of the candidate.

Yes, you always know what I'm thinking, and why I'm thinking it.  There is no possibility that I have superior critical thinking skills, more mature understanding of how politics of anything works, and an ability to spot lies with statistics.  If you and I have a different take on some things, it must be because my political preferences are clouding my judgment while you are able to keep your rationality.

Refreshing honesty on Languish.

[Barrister]

I'm not being a Fiorina schill here.  It's just to say that looking solely at her time as HP CEO is missing a big part of the picture.

True. I was only reacting to her dishonesty when addressing her time at HP. What she has been up to since then I have no idea. I am not going to look deeply into it unless she is still in the running when it comes time for me to vote/caucus. The last time a Republican Primary got to Texas without being wrapped up is...um...maybe when Taft and Roosevelt were fighting over it and the only party members were federal appointees.

It is not like Texas is an important Republican state or anything, no reason to seriously consult the party here.

Dude, Texas is a Super Tuesday state.  Hell even in 2012 the nomination wasn't over before Super Tuesday.

[Syt]

Why?  Haven't watched the clip.

FYI, campaign mouthpiece is claiming the Donald didn't hear all  of the question.

I'm surprised there wasn't more facepalming/roaring laughter in the audience during the question.

[The Minsky Moment]

BB -
She never won an election.  Never served in public office. 
She was on the board at Taiwan semiconductor for a bit.  The other board seats were far from top tier - given her high profile and experience that says something how she was perceived in the business world. 

[Valmy]

Dude, Texas is a Super Tuesday state.  Hell even in 2012 the nomination wasn't over before Super Tuesday.

Yeah it was. I was there and voted and caucused.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm surprised there wasn't more facepalming/roaring laughter in the audience during the question.

Keep in mind these types of events tend to have pre-selected audiences.

In particular the folks behind the candidate are always dyed in the wool supporters.  They won't want to make the Donald look bad.  Which is why I found the reactions interesting.  Two people boggling, one nutter grinning in agreement with ranterman, and the others frozen with deer in the headlights looks.

[Berkut]

It is DG talking about politics, and about a Republican. I am not saying he is not truthful, but what he posts is driven by the outcome he desires, not by any kind of objective evaluation of the candidate.

Yes, you always know what I'm thinking, and why I'm thinking it. 

It's not like that is difficult.

[Berkut]

Fiorina IIRC was the main mover behind the Compaq deal and its hard to spin that positively.  Her tenure at Lucent was also controversial as Lucent did heavy vendor finance deals that ended up being badly impaired once the dotcom boom ended.

I don't think her problems at HP disqualify her but they certainly aren't a positive demonstration of her suitability as POTUS.  And she doesn't seem to have anything else going for her.

Yeah, I worked for HP a bit before she took over, and knew a lot of people at HP while she was there.

I don't really understand what possible qualification she has for being president. Frankly, running a big company *well* is not really much of a qualification, much less being, at best, mediocre at it.

What else does she have that makes her a candidate?

Of course, the same question can be asked of most of the Republican field, I suppose.

The serious answer is that it's her work since leaving HP in 2005.

She wrote a book (apparantly she has a few), served on some corporate boards, did some work for Fox Business News, and has been very busy on the speaking circuit. 

POlitically, she chaired Republican fund-raising efforts in the 2008 election, served as chair of the CIA External Advisory Board, and ran for the Senate in 2008.

Now you're free to say that, too, doesn't qualify one to be President, but it's hard to say what exactly those qualifications are or should be.  I mean the last three Presidents were the junior senator from Illinois, a governor from Texas just into his second term, and the former governor of tiny Arkansas.

What her qualifications seem to be are a mixture of Ben Carson's inspiring biography and speaking tour experience (one time law firm receptionist turned Fortune 500 CEO), part Trump's business experience, and mixed with enough inside-politics connections and knowledge to be able to run a viable, professional campaign.

I'm not being a Fiorina schill here.  It's just to say that looking solely at her time as HP CEO is missing a big part of the picture.

I think if you look for more picture, there really isn't anything there though.

If she wants to be a politician, maybe she could win some election somewhere that is NOT the biggest politically elected position on the planet...for example.

[DGuller]

It is DG talking about politics, and about a Republican. I am not saying he is not truthful, but what he posts is driven by the outcome he desires, not by any kind of objective evaluation of the candidate.

Yes, you always know what I'm thinking, and why I'm thinking it. 

It's not like that is difficult.

Sometimes it takes a lot of knowledge to understand that things that appear easy are not in fact easy.  I think this is one of those situations.  The first time you picked a fight with me almost ten years ago, you pegged me as a Christian fundamentalist.

[garbon]

The first time you picked a fight with me almost ten years ago, you pegged me as a Christian fundamentalist.

Oh god, the raz method of argument.

[DGuller]

The first time you picked a fight with me almost ten years ago, you pegged me as a Christian fundamentalist.

Oh god, the raz method of argument.

Give me a break.  I think it's a very relevant fact in this case to support the argument that Berkut sometimes badly overestimates his ability to understand other peoples' thought processes.  And the whole line of discussion is the definition of ad hominem in the first place, to attack people's credibility so that you don't have to attack their arguments.

[Barrister]

The first time you picked a fight with me almost ten years ago, you pegged me as a Christian fundamentalist.

Oh god, the raz method of argument.

Give me a break.  I think it's a very relevant fact in this case to support the argument that Berkut sometimes badly overestimates his ability to understand other peoples' thought processes.  And the whole line of discussion is the definition of ad hominem in the first place, to attack people's credibility so that you don't have to attack their arguments.

Stop it - you're both right.

Berkut has an unfortunate tendency to go after a poster's motives for posting, rather than the content of their argument.

DGuller has a proven track record of hewing very close to the Democratic party line.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, but his constant denial of it weakens DG's credibility.

Say it with me DGuller - it's okay to be partisan and biased. I know I am.

[Admiral Yi]

Bias is by definition an inaccurate view of the true state of affairs.  No one sets out to be biased and no one should be happy being biased.