Carly's Plan to Stump a Democrat

[Skeptic Ginger]

No one but Fiorina thinks she did a good job as CEO of HP.

 

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Well, a detailed financial analysis of the synergies of the merger and the impact on HP's strategic position in the market. This article makes it seem like many of the people who thought it was a bad idea at the time came around to think that it was actually a good idea. And I showed in my previous post that the company's stock performance supports Carly's claim that the merger was a good idea. Perhaps you didn't follow that bit.

I can't post links yet, but I just read an article from the Stanford Graduate School of Business, dated 2007, that agrees with you, but gives the credit for ultimate success to her successor, Mark Hurd. It says the logic was sound, but the execution was difficult, and that's where Carly failed and Hurd succeeded.

Politico has an article where they asked top Democrats to answer Carly's question. The sanctions against Iran were mentioned a couple of times as forcing them to the bargaining table, as was the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Politico - What is Hillary's Greatest Accomplishment?

1. Her China speech on women.
2. Her role in killing Osama bin Laden.
3. Management of the State Department during which time we saw a 50 percent increase in exports to China, aggressive work on climate (particularly at Copenhagen), and the effort to create and implement the toughest sanctions ever on Iran—helping to lead us to the agreement currently on the table.

'The sanction on Iran that brought them to the table’

‘Nearly every foreign policy victory of President Obama’s second term has Secretary Clinton’s fingerprints on it’

‘The SCHIP program … which expanded health coverage to millions of lower-income children’

As Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton was not only inspirational figure for billions of women around the globe, she also did much to restore the shattered credibility of the United States, which had lost so much influence following the failed foreign policies of the previous administration. She negotiated the cease-fire in Gaza that stopped the Hamas from firing rocket after rocket into Israel. She helped secure the START treaty’s ratification, and has advanced women’s rights in countries around the globe.

‘Rebuilding America’s leadership and prestige overseas after the Bush years’

‘The Pediatric Research Equity Act’

Paul Begala added:

Ms. Fiorina may not see that as an accomplishment, since while she was CEO of Hewlett-Packard the firm sold hundreds of millions of dollars of computer products the the terrorist regime in Tehran, evading US sanctions.

 

[sunmaster14]

Politico - What is Hillary's Greatest Accomplishment?

Thank you for listing some putative accomplishments in the thread. Finally. I plan to discuss, although not at the moment.

Paul Begala added:

I love that Carly is doing so well that the Dems have now painted a bullseye on her back. That's a good sign. They have reason to be fearful of Carly. If she were to get the Republican nomination, she would be unbeatable.

As for the claim that HP cleverly evaded sanctions to sell printers and computers to Iran, I couldn't care less. First of all, Carly's fiduciary duty was to shareholders. She had no obligation to the US government except to comply with the law, which she did. [Which, by the way, is something that Hillary cannot say. Well, actually she can say it, but she'd be lying, as usual.] Second of all, HP's printers were overpriced, and their computers kind of sucked back then. So it probably hurt Iran. If Iran had bought tens of thousands of color inkjet printers, they would have quickly been bankrupted by having to replace the cartridges every week.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

You're willing to go No True Scotsman to defend HP violating trade sanctions designed to punish Iran for/prevent continuation of nuclear weapons research.

Why do you hate America?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thank you for listing some putative accomplishments in the thread. Finally. I plan to discuss, although not at the moment.

Because no one else mentioned any accomplishments?

I love that Carly is doing so well that the Dems have now painted a bullseye on her back. That's a good sign. They have reason to be fearful of Carly. If she were to get the Republican nomination, she would be unbeatable.

Fiorina challenged Democrats. They responded. You even posted a thread, we responded.

Now you are going to say that means the Democrats are targeting Fiorina?

As for the claim that HP cleverly evaded sanctions to sell printers and computers to Iran, I couldn't care less.

Do you know how poorly your arguments are coming across in this thread?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

The disconnect is unreal. HP violated sanctions and we get a hand wave, but then a POTUS he dislikes makes a deal with Iran that doesn't include releasing prisoners (excuse me, "hostages") and that, apparently, is practically giving Iran Teh Bomb.

 

[sunmaster14]

You're willing to go No True Scotsman to defend HP violating trade sanctions designed to punish Iran for/prevent continuation of nuclear weapons research.

First of all, HP has not been accused of violating trade sanctions. It has been accused of getting around them in order to make sell more of its product and make more profit for its shareholders. Second, the CEO of HP has a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value, while staying in compliance with the law and the bylaws of the corporation. If the CEO were to constrain the business for other reasons, e.g. social justice, charitable works, patriotism, then she would be violating her fiduciary duty to shareholders. The only way that acting as a "good corporate citizen" can be justified is if the benefits from burnishing the company's reputation outweigh the costs. It is for this reason that I find some of the social activism by certain CEOs to be unethical. If shareholders wanted the company to forego profits in order to achieve some social good, then they can vote to add such social goals to the bylaws.

If Carly Fiorina (as has been alleged) signed off on a way to circumvent sanctions legally in order to enhance shareholder value, then it is to her credit. She did her duty. If she became President, her duty would be to the country, and I have no doubt that the national security would be her highest priority.

Why do you hate America?

I'm quite fond of the US actually. There are very few things I hate, and this country is certainly not one of them.

 

[sunmaster14]

Because no one else mentioned any accomplishments?

Not in this thread, no.

Fiorina challenged Democrats. They responded. You even posted a thread, we responded.

Now you are going to say that means the Democrats are targeting Fiorina?

I was talking about Paul Begala's attack on her for HP's alleged circumvention of sanctions to sell computer equipment to Iran. If she hadn't become a credible threat to win the nomination, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have bothered.

Do you know how poorly your arguments are coming across in this thread?

I usually have a good sense of how I'm doing. I'm happy with the thread so far.

 

[sunmaster14]

The disconnect is unreal. HP violated sanctions and we get a hand wave, but then a POTUS he dislikes makes a deal with Iran that doesn't include releasing prisoners (excuse me, "hostages") and that, apparently, is practically giving Iran Teh Bomb.

As I explained above, HP has no duty to US national security beyond what the law demands. The President on the other hand has sworn an oath to protect and defend the national security.

I don't particularly care about the release of US prisoners. It was more of an indication of what a poor negotiator Obama is. As I explained in detail in the other thread, it was a trivial concession to win. Iran actually asked for a major concession at the 11th hour on ballistic missiles and got it.

In any case, the Iran deal speaks for itself. It is what it is, and all I see is a deal which gives Iran immense benefits upfront, and the only punishment for Iran's cheating (assuming that the cheating is caught, which is doubtful) is that the UN attempts to return to the sanctions' status quo, minus any trade deals Iran inked in the interim. Iran can cheat the day after its assets are unfrozen, and announce it to the world, and it will still be immensely better off than the status quo. How can that be a good deal? The only way it could possibly work is if Iran had no intention of building a nuclear bomb in the first place. But if it didn't, then why do we need a deal which strengthens a terrorist state that has unilaterally decided we are its #1 enemy?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Perhaps you could point to a couple of these accomplishments specifically? I see that the wiki has Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky listed. Also, she's a great cattle futures trader (well, in truth, a great bribe taker).

She had the capacity to forgive Bill for his indiscretions.

Whitewater was just a conspiracy theory.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As I explained above, HP has no duty to US national security beyond what the law demands. The President on the other hand has sworn an oath to protect and defend the national security....

OK, so let's look at these two things:

HP got around a trade embargo by using a subsidiary:

"When she calls for sanctions against Iran, which we can certainly agree with, the hypocritical thing is that she participated as CEO in undermining those very sanctions," DeVore said in a debate.

"These accusations that we, that HP did something unlawful are false," Fiorina replied.

She's technically correct, trade law experts say. Under President Clinton's 1995 executive order banning almost all trade with Iran, Hewlett-Packard did not break the law because the sales came from a subsidiary that HP owned but which HP's American operation did not control.

For a sale to violate the embargo, an American company has to both own and control the overseas branch responsible for the sales, said attorney Victor Comras, a former senior sanctions expert for the State Department....
'We may own these subsidiaries but we don't control them,' " Comras said. "And that has been a very effective loophole. They are not technically breaking the law. But are they circumventing the law? I would think so."

Fiorina HP and the Iran connection

HP used a Mideast distributor called Redington Gulf to sell hundreds of millions of dollars of copiers and other products to Iran during Fiorina’s tenure....
Forbes magazine ran a story called “Trading with the Enemy” in 2004, that described the “open secret” of how U.S. companies handled transactions with “Hewlett-Packard, Dell and Microsoft, among many other U.S. companies, keep Dubai offices and are favorites these days among Iranian traders in Dubai. Reason? Strong demand for ‘anything high-tech for military or oil services,’ says [Abbas] Bolurfrushan of the Iranian Business Council.

As to the second claim, you and many right wingers don't agree with Obama on policy. Lots of experts do agree, including Colin Powell, as do the other countries that were involved in the deal. The money is not the US giving Iran money, it's Iran's money being released from international banks that had put a hold on Iranian assets. And it's not released all at once IIRC.

So on the one hand, under Fiorina's watch her company knowingly (the evidence shows) skirted a trade embargo and on the other hand people don't agree with a policy decision.

Which of those is closer to an actual treasonal act?

 

[sunmaster14]

OK, so let's look at these two things:

HP got around a trade embargo by using a subsidiary:


Fiorina HP and the Iran connection



As to the second claim, you and many right wingers don't agree with Obama on policy. Lots of experts do agree, including Colin Powell, as do the other countries that were involved in the deal. The money is not the US giving Iran money, it's Iran's money being released from international banks that had put a hold on Iranian assets. And it's not released all at once IIRC.

So on the one hand, under Fiorina's watch her company knowingly (the evidence shows) skirted a trade embargo and on the other hand people don't agree with a policy decision.

Which of those is closer to an actual treasonal act?

I don't think either one is close to being an actual act of treason. Certainly Fiorina's wasn't, given that what she did was in full compliance with the law, and she had no duty to the nation other than complying with the law.

My point wasn't actually to imply that Obama violated his oath to the nation. It was to highlight the fact that if Fiorina became President, she would have a duty to the nation, and we have good reason to believe she would honor her duty. She did so at HP with respect to her obligations to HP shareholders. Whether or not she made bad decisions is besides the point. Nobody has credibly questioned her commitment or integrity in her role as HP's CEO.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think either one is close to being an actual act of treason. Certainly Fiorina's wasn't, given that what she did was in full compliance with the law, and she had no duty to the nation other than complying with the law.

My point wasn't actually to imply that Obama violated his oath to the nation. It was to highlight the fact that if Fiorina became President, she would have a duty to the nation, and we have good reason to believe she would honor her duty. She did so at HP with respect to her obligations to HP shareholders. Whether or not she made bad decisions is besides the point. Nobody has credibly questioned her commitment or integrity in her role as HP's CEO.

Double standard: Fiorina: "was in full compliance with the law".
Clinton's emails were also in full compliance of the law. And there is no evidence she didn't fulfill her 'duty to the nation', there is only suspicion and baseless innuendo.

Also, corporate fiduciary responsibility to the shareholder is a false claim. We had a fleshed out thread on this before. There is no such law.

Instead, there are two schools of thought, responsibility to the shareholder and responsibility to the stakeholders. The later includes corporate social responsibility. Some of us believe that corporate social responsibility is good for business.

For the right wing that would like to see unfettered corporate behavior, it's worth noting that means dumping pollution into the land, sea and air because one can avoid the costs of disposal and cleanup if one shifts the cost to the taxpayer. In addition, a lot of the costs for military intervention in foreign countries comes from the taxpayer and directly benefits the corporations that are profiting from another country's resources.

So corporate fiduciary responsibility without corporate social responsibility amounts to ripping the taxpayers off for as much as a corporation can get away with.

By my calculations, Clinton's lack of transparency in a government position is so much less of a real problem when compared to the unpatriotic actions of a corporation you want to let off the hook because of a false belief a corporation has no moral obligation to society.

 

[uk_dave]

I love that Carly is doing so well that the Dems have now painted a bullseye on her back.

A bullseyeCarly?

Love that this thread wasn't about iCarly, then it was, then it wasn't and now it is.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Worthy of mention: Fiorina ran for Senator and lost, Clinton actually was a Senator.

 

[Trebuchet]

So "Fiduciary Responsibility" means "be a weasel". Gotcha.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So "Fiduciary Responsibility" means "be a weasel". Gotcha.

It means making despicable decisions sans any guilt over them.

 

[sunmaster14]

Double standard: Fiorina: "was in full compliance with the law".
Clinton's emails were also in full compliance of the law. And there is no evidence she didn't fulfill her 'duty to the nation', there is only suspicion and baseless innuendo.

No, I showed in the email thread that Clinton violated regulations promulgated to implement the Federal Records Act. She clearly had not preserved federal records under her control in the appropriate recordkeeping system until many years after they were created, and as of 1995 (and certainly as of 2009), work-related emails counted as federal records. The storage of classified material on an unsecured computer is a whole other issue, and I have little doubt that she violated the law in that area as well.

Also, corporate fiduciary responsibility to the shareholder is a false claim. We had a fleshed out thread on this before. There is no such law.

First and foremost, fiduciary duty is an ethical obligation. As far as the law is concerned, while there may be no statutes formalizing the obligation under criminal law, there is clearly common law that imposes the duty under pain of civil redress. In certain fiduciary relationships, there is an implied legal contract, and if a fiduciary breaches his duty, he is liable for damages.

Instead, there are two schools of thought, responsibility to the shareholder and responsibility to the stakeholders. The later includes corporate social responsibility. Some of us believe that corporate social responsibility is good for business.

Well, it's kind of like saying there are two schools of thought about evolution. The one that says we evolved from apes, and another which says that we were created in God's image, but God decided to hide his work by planting evidence to make it look like we evolved from apes.

The managers of a company have a duty to maximize shareholder value while operating within the various legal and contractual constraints of the company, which include federal, state, and local laws, corporate bylaws, employment contracts, bond and loan indentures, and any other business contracts. The interests of society are protected by various federal, state and local laws. The interests of employees are protected by employment laws and their individual employment contracts. The interests of business partners and lenders are protected by business contracts and loan indentures. The interests of shareholders are protected only by the fiduciary duty of the managers.

For the right wing that would like to see unfettered corporate behavior, it's worth noting that means dumping pollution into the land, sea and air because one can avoid the costs of disposal and cleanup if one shifts the cost to the taxpayer. In addition, a lot of the costs for military intervention in foreign countries comes from the taxpayer and directly benefits the corporations that are profiting from another country's resources.

The right wing does not believe in unfettered corporate behavior. The difference between right wing and left wing is about how to "fetter" corporate behavior. Being a right-winger, I believe that most of the prescriptions advanced by the left-wing are counter-productive. Those corporate constraints on which the right-wing and left-wing agree (and there are many of them) are already law for the most part, so we don't tend to debate them, or even think about them. We only get into fights about the regulations on which we disagree.

So corporate fiduciary responsibility without corporate social responsibility amounts to ripping the taxpayers off for as much as a corporation can get away with.

That's a rather tendentious way of putting it, but I agree in principle.

By my calculations, Clinton's lack of transparency in a government position is so much less of a real problem when compared to the unpatriotic actions of a corporation you want to let off the hook because of a false belief a corporation has no moral obligation to society.

Well, this thread was supposed to be about Clinton's accomplishments, but remember the problem with the private server wasn't so much lack of transparency as violation of the law. If Clinton had clearly not violated the law, this would have been a minor issue, and the mainstream media would have completely ignored it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, you presented whatever it was and the DoJ told the courts no laws were broken by Clinton's email use.

The stuff in your post is all crap. An official clearance by the DoJ trumps all the right wing flailing.