• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Generic Fiorina Thread

TheL8Elvis said:
Although I should keep looking for a better link (probably the fox news direct link):
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-parenthood-claims-but-shes-not-backing-down/

“Do you acknowledge what every fact-checker has found that as horrific as that scene is, it was only described on the video by someone who claimed to have seen it?” he said. “There is no actual footage of the incident that you just mentioned.”

“No, I don’t accept that at all. I’ve seen the footage,” she responded. “I find it amazing, actually, that all these supposed fact-checkers in the mainstream media claim this doesn’t exist. They’re trying to attack the authenticity of the video tape.”

So her 'literal words ' say she doesn't accept that "There is no actual footage' ... because she has seen it ?

Explain that :confused:
Click to expand...


On Meet the Press, the discussion of her interview was described as, she is completely oblivious to empirical evidence. She's all message and her audience is all into that message.

So it came down to, will the majority of voters go with the message they want, empirical reality matters not? I think in the primary that is the problem the GOP has. The answer is reality matters not.

In the general election reality matters.

And if we could just get rid of the gerrymandering, reality might just matter to the Congress as well.
 
sunmaster14 said:
That fact-checking article is a beautiful example of liberal bias. For her claims about her biography to earn any Pinocchios, let alone three is absurd. A similar analysis applied to Joe Biden's or Hillary Clinton's biographies would set a record for Pinocchios.
Click to expand...

Sandra Day O'Connor worked her way up from legal secretary to SCOTUS Justice. When she got out of law school no one would hire her as a lawyer so she took the secretary job.

Fiorina had a job as a secretary in college. According to her bio:
After dropping out of law school, she became an AT&T management trainee. She moved up the company ladder and became the first female officer in the Network Systems division. In 1998, she was put in charge of Lucent's Global Service Provider division. A year later, she was tapped as CEO of Hewlett-Packard. ...
after trying law school, she bounced from job to job, working as a receptionist and teaching English in Italy. Carly finally signing on as a management trainee at AT&T at age 25. Around this time, AT&T had reached a deal with the government to settle a sexual discrimination lawsuit. The terms of the agreement called for the company to hire more women for management positions.
Click to expand...
Management trainee is not a secretary. You don't claim you worked your way up from unrelated jobs you held before and during college unless you want to pad your accomplishments. She didn't even finish her degree.

She worked her way up from management trainee which she got through an affirmative action mandate.

Working your way up implies one job led into another. She'd have been smarter to have just said she started as a management trainee and rose at record speed to CEO of a Fortune 100 company.

Claiming she worked her way up from secretary would only be true if she'd been working as a secretary at AT&T when she was accepted into the management trainee job.

Padding your resume doesn't help when your actual resume is in the public record.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
....
Padding your resume doesn't help when your actual resume is in the public record.
Click to expand...


More about her record:
But in interviews with more than two dozen former HP senior directors and employees, many remember Fiorina’s legacy as troubling and divisive: A high-energy marketer, she nevertheless failed to deliver on lofty promises, alienated her workforce and presided over a disastrous reign at what was once a Silicon Valley pioneer.
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...5b5e16-6174-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html
 
Bob001 said:
Fiorina really doesn't like to pay her debts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...bdcdd2-50be-11e5-933e-7d06c647a395_story.html
Click to expand...

That's a completely ridiculous attack. Losing campaigns always have unpaid debts. That's the risk of doing business for campaigns, and is one of the reasons that campaigns (particularly long-shot ones) are considered greater credit risks and are therefore charged premium fees. The attacks on Trump for having four of his projects go bankrupt is similarly ridiculous. Bondholders on those kinds of projects earn very high interest rates to compensate them for the credit risk. Sometimes it works out well for them; sometimes it doesn't. On average, they tend to do well. In any case, there are no fiduciary duties owed to creditors. The obligations are spelled out in contracts, and both sides will take maximum advantage of their contractual rights.
 
sunmaster14 said:
That's a completely ridiculous attack. Losing campaigns always have unpaid debts. That's the risk of doing business for campaigns, and is one of the reasons that campaigns (particularly long-shot ones) are considered greater credit risks and are therefore charged premium fees. The attacks on Trump for having four of his projects go bankrupt is similarly ridiculous. Bondholders on those kinds of projects earn very high interest rates to compensate them for the credit risk. Sometimes it works out well for them; sometimes it doesn't. On average, they tend to do well. In any case, there are no fiduciary duties owed to creditors. The obligations are spelled out in contracts, and both sides will take maximum advantage of their contractual rights.
Click to expand...

Since this is the All Things Carly thread, let's stick to the story on her debts and not go off into the parallels of financing via bonds. (Although apparently Carly paid back her largest creditor - herself - for the loans she gave the campaign.) Fiorina stiffed workers and small contractors.
 
sunmaster14 said:
That's a completely ridiculous attack. Losing campaigns always have unpaid debts. That's the risk of doing business for campaigns, and is one of the reasons that campaigns (particularly long-shot ones) are considered greater credit risks and are therefore charged premium fees. The attacks on Trump for having four of his projects go bankrupt is similarly ridiculous. Bondholders on those kinds of projects earn very high interest rates to compensate them for the credit risk. Sometimes it works out well for them; sometimes it doesn't. On average, they tend to do well. In any case, there are no fiduciary duties owed to creditors. The obligations are spelled out in contracts, and both sides will take maximum advantage of their contractual rights.
Click to expand...
Does the hand wave to the left or only to the right?
 
sunmaster14 said:
I challenge you to find her exact words during the debate and pick them apart and show me where she lied. I dare ya.
Click to expand...

So, you support misinformation put out by republickers and excuse it because it might not technically due to it's phrasing be a li? Interesting.
 
sunmaster14 said:
That's a completely ridiculous attack. Losing campaigns always have unpaid debts. That's the risk of doing business for campaigns, and is one of the reasons that campaigns (particularly long-shot ones) are considered greater credit risks and are therefore charged premium fees.
.....
Click to expand...

Another "everybody does it" defense. So it's okay to stiff employees and small businesses if you think you can get away with it? These weren't Wall Street banks; they were ordinary people -- like print shops that produced flyers -- who provided goods and services and expected to be paid. Fiorina's behavior says a lot about her character.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Since this is the All Things Carly thread, let's stick to the story on her debts and not go off into the parallels of financing via bonds. (Although apparently Carly paid back her largest creditor - herself - for the loans she gave the campaign.) Fiorina stiffed workers and small contractors.
Click to expand...

A loan (probably a zero-interest one at that) will be senior in priority to trade liabilities. In any case, it's unclear from the article if Fiorina's campaign paid her loan back in full, or only in part. I don't trust the WaPo to report that kind of detail accurately in a hit piece.

Also, I found this tidbit interesting (emphasis added):

Jon Seaton, the managing partner of East Meridian Strategies, confirmed that his group billed Fiorina’s campaign for $18,000 on Oct. 6, 2010, for printing 21,290 mailers.
Click to expand...

That sounded like quite a lot of money to me for bulk mailings. In fact, it seems to be. From this link, I calculate $13,506.89 all-in (including the cost of the mailing list and the actual first class mailing charge) for a large coated, brochure (8.5"x14"), with full color on both sides. And the price Mr. Seaton charged was 5 years ago (during a recession by the way). No doubt there was a little padding in the price to account for the credit risk, which is known to all to be terrible for a losing campaign.
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
.....
That sounded like quite a lot of money to me for bulk mailings. In fact, it seems to be. From this link, I calculate $13,506.89 all-in (including the cost of the mailing list and the actual first class mailing charge) for a large coated, brochure (8.5"x14"), with full color on both sides. And the price Mr. Seaton charged was 5 years ago (during a recession by the way). No doubt there was a little padding in the price to account for the credit risk, which is known to all to be terrible for a losing campaign.
Click to expand...

You don't know whether there were additional requirements, like rush delivery or art layout and preparation. And obviously the campaign had no incentive to put the job out for bids or shop for the lowest price if they didn't intend to pay the bill anyway. You also overlook the fact that some of the people who weren't paid were her own employees, not lenders.

I suspect that you would adore the Washington Post if the facts it reports supported your preconceptions. But others have reported Carly's unwillingness to pay her bills.
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/joeg...ill-owes-debts-from-2010-campaign-3654164.php
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...er-campaign-staff-and-paid-herself-first.html
http://fortune.com/2015/05/21/carly-fiorina-unpaid-staffers/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/carly-fiorina-campaign-debt-senate-2016
 
From your Daily Beast reference (my emphasis added):

Altogether, Fiorina financed nearly $7 million of the $21 million Senate campaign through personal loans to her campaign at 0 percent interest. In November 2009, she launched Carly for California and quickly pumped $2.5 million into the nascent Senate bid. She then repeatedly dipped into her personal fortune as the campaign went on, including a $1 million loan in the final weeks of the campaign to pay for a last-minute ad buy against Boxer.

Having declared all of her loans during the primary as a loss, Fiorina paid herself back in full for loans she made in the general election, using cash on hand to repay herself $250,000 two weeks before the election and $1 million on the day before Election Day.
Click to expand...

Seems eminently reasonable to me. What she did at the end of the campaign was equivalent to debtor-in-possession (i.e. DIP) financing. The trade creditors and employees were quite likely better off as a result of her lending the money, even with a priority claim to be paid back, because it gave the campaign a better chance of winning and of raising more money from donors in the final weeks.
 
Here's an article about Hillary Clinton's campaign debts from 2008. Heaven forfend anybody write an article about her "stiffing" creditors for over four years until the prospect of her running for president in 2016 got the fundraising machine going again (my editorial comment added).

More than four years after Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic nomination for president, Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign is finally debt-free, new reports filed by the campaign show.
Clinton’s campaign committee paid off about $25 million in debt and now has a surplus of $204,832. The campaign retired its debt just as Clinton is preparing to step down from her job as secretary of state. Clinton supporters are pushing her to run for the presidency again in 2016.

The campaign raised more than $233,000 in the last three months of 2012. Of that, more than $62,000 came from renting out the campaign’s list to Obama for America.

Former President Bill Clinton, known for his fundraising (and womanizing) abilities, has been helping the campaign raise money on behalf of his wife (and the dozens of floozies paid to keep quiet about his escapades).
Click to expand...
 
sunmaster14 said:
Here's an article about Hillary Clinton's campaign debts from 2008. Heaven forfend anybody write an article about her "stiffing" creditors for over four years until the prospect of her running for president in 2016 got the fundraising machine going again (my editorial comment added).
Click to expand...

So Hillary kept raising money to pay her campaign's debts, Carly did not, and somehow you think Carly was the better person for it?
 
Let the record show that Sunmaster14 added text to the quote without directly indicating he did so.

I'm sure he will say that italicizing was sufficient. It's still smarmy and pathetically partisan. But to be expected.

Edit - BeAChooser seems to be coming back little by little.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Here's an article about Hillary Clinton's campaign debts from 2008. Heaven forfend anybody write an article about her "stiffing" creditors for over four years until the prospect of her running for president in 2016 got the fundraising machine going again (my editorial comment added).
Click to expand...

DavidJames said:
Let the record show that Sunmaster14 added text to the quote without directly indicating he did so.

I'm sure he will say that italicizing was sufficient. It's still smarmy and pathetically partisan. But to be expected.

Edit - BeAChooser seems to be coming back little by little.
Click to expand...

My hilite added. :rolleyes:
 
Cleon said:
So Hillary kept raising money to pay her campaign's debts, Carly did not, and somehow you think Carly was the better person for it?
Click to expand...

Yes, Hillary kept raising money for her campaign fund while she was Secretary of State of the United States. What an outstanding public servant!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom