Trump Blasts Fiorinas Physical Appearance

[socotra 3,357]

He's so stupid omfg 

I detest all of the candidates in the Republican field, but if we had to have one of them, I'd prefer it be Fiorina (or Kasich). Not sure why he makes totally irrelevant statements like this that don't further his political game at all. What's the point? How does it benefit him at all? 

We have here, ladies and gentleman, a genuine asshole on the national stage. 

[Riot Poof 2,236]

First of all, Dump Truck is fugly.

Second of all, nobody in their right mind would consider physical appearance an important factor when in comes to presidential candidates.

Mess.

[TheOriginalOne 11,647]

Someone drop a bomb on us already

[Probglum 824]

Wait...is this coming from a man who looks like an artichoke heart?

[UDO 35]

I agree with like 99% of what Trump says, but I don't agree with when he attacks women's physical appearances. this is just stupid, what he said. she is beautiful, and I think all women are beautiful.

[Better Day 5,766]

Why the f*ck would anyone vote for the Republicans anyways? They are scummy right-wingers

[Economy 53,134]

Why the f*ck would anyone vote for the Republicans anyways? They are scummy right-wingers

id vote for republicans if i was American

 

(well depends on the leader, i wouldnt vote for trump)

[SKANK 14,288]

 

 

he did not just call my favourite candidate ugly

 

If you are a Republican that is obviously fine. What I'm confused about is why Fiorina? Your name is Economy, your a voter motivated by economic issues, surly she is the worst possible candidate for you.

Her performance as a CEO was awful, Hewlett-Packard sacked her because their stock plummeted. You have in the past defend the Key Stone pipe line because it is a job creator, but Fiorina is responsible for laying off 20,000 Americans (my Dad being one of them.) Her lay offs were so extensive that some states had to receive emergency funds from the government to help those effected. Her decision to merge Hewlett-Packard with Compaq destroyed the company.

This is how hardcore Fiorina ****ed Hewlett-Packard stock:

 

 

I respect that your conservative, but I don't understand why you like this candidate. Care to explain?

[Economy 53,134]

 

If you are a Republican that is obviously fine. What I'm confused about is why Fiorina? Your name is Economy, your a voter motivated by economic issues, surly she is the worst possible candidate for you.

Her performance as a CEO was awful, Hewlett-Packard sacked her because their stock plummeted. You have in the past defend the Key Stone pipe line because it is a job creator, but Fiorina is responsible for laying off 20,000 Americans (my Dad being one of them.) Her lay offs were so extensive that some states had to receive emergency funds from the government to help those effected. Her decision to merge Hewlett-Packard with Compaq destroyed the company.

This is how hardcore Fiorina ****ed Hewlett-Packard stock:

 

 

I respect that your conservative, but I don't understand why you like this candidate. Care to explain?

she did well as CEO for a while and was moved up for a reason... To use the companies troubles as reason isnt a good measure...

 

The companies troubles began after the .com bubble. Guess what? During that time many tech companies stocks plummeted, and many fired workers. In fact it took over a decade for tech indexes to recover losses...

 

additionally in the corporate world, its not rare to fire CEOs after trouble to install confidence in shareholders... And even if she did make a mistake with merge who doesnt? We also dont kniw details on what could of gone wrong with planning that wasnt even her fault who knows. She wouldnt have started as a secretary and move up all the way to CEo if sue was dumb. So im not swayed by this 1 thing. Especially considering the company grew big time under her (over $80 billion it got to in market capex)

 

I like her because shes very logical in reasoning, has many of the ideals i do on economy, many simmilar solutions, sees problems at the fundamental level etc... Lots of intellegence there

 

I love her idea on simplyfing taxes. She understands the loopholes are benefiting only the rich and crushing the small but without promoting investmebt. I like her balanced views on energy and immigration not going hardcore on either side of spectrum. I like that she weighs pros and cons

 

And as a bonus, shes not quite as  conservative as many candidates on social issues/views which is the 1 issue i have with republicans in general

 

Donald trump for instance isnt as hard core conservative on social matters and has some good economic ideas... But hes too cocky for my taste... Additionally some of his ideas are unrealistic or extreme such as building a giant wall and somehow making Mexico pay for it. No realistic and even if u managed to do it would u really want bad blood woth ur 3rd biggest trading partner?

[TiphEret 1,320]

Hello...did he check his haircut? because if he wants to go down that (lame) road he has some work to do first... and she isn't ugly at all if that matters

[SKANK 14,288]

she did well as CEO for a while and was moved up for a reason... To use the companies troubles as reason isnt a good measure...

 

The companies troubles began after the .com bubble. Guess what? During that time many tech companies stocks plummeted, and many fired workers. In fact it took over a decade for tech indexes to recover losses...

 

additionally in the corporate world, its not rare to fire CEOs after trouble to install confidence in shareholders... And even if she did make a mistake with merge who doesnt? We also dont kniw details on what could of gone wrong with planning that wasnt even her fault who knows. She wouldnt have started as a secretary and move up all the way to CEo if sue was dumb. So im not swayed by this 1 thing. Especially considering the company grew big time under her (over $80 billion it got to in market capex)

 

I like her because shes very logical in reasoning, has many of the ideals i do on economy, many simmilar solutions, sees problems at the fundamental level etc... Lots of intellegence there

 

I love her idea on simplyfing taxes. She understands the loopholes are benefiting only the rich and crushing the small but without promoting investmebt. I like her balanced views on energy and immigration not going hardcore on either side of spectrum. I like that she weighs pros and cons

 

And as a bonus, shes not quite as  conservative as many candidates on social issues/views which is the 1 issue i have with republicans in general

 

Donald trump for instance isnt as hard core conservative on social matters and has some good economic ideas... But hes too cocky for my taste... Additionally some of his ideas are unrealistic or extreme such as building a giant wall and somehow making Mexico pay for it. No realistic and even if u managed to do it would u really want bad blood woth ur 3rd biggest trading partner?

I defer to you about the inner workings of the cooperate world, that is your wheel house. But, it seems fairly clear that she wasn't what anyone would regard as a major successful in the business world.

As far as social issues are concerned, sure Fiorina isn't a nut bag holding hands with Kim Davis, but she still is very socially conservative. She supports a constitutional ban on gay marriage. She wants to over turn Row v. Wade and make abortion illegal in America. She is even opposed to embryonic stem cell research. Also, that face, man, how can you vote for someone with that face? Kidding.

 

[Economy 53,134]

 

I defer to you about the inner workings of the cooperate world, that is your wheel house. But, it seems fairly clear that she wasn't what anyone would regard as a major successful in the business world.

As far as social issues are concerned, sure Fiorina isn't a nut bag holding hands with Kim Davis, but she still is very socially conservative. She supports a constitutional ban on gay marriage. She wants to over turn Row v. Wade and make abortion illegal in America. She is even opposed to embryonic stem cell research. Also, that face, man, how can you vote for someone with that face? Kidding.

 

she was highly regarded and for 6 years in a row ranked #1 business woman in one of the major US magazines... she was the first woman to be CEO of a top 20 Corporation in the world... she grew the company a lot

 

I do not know every detail of her firing and circumstances nor is every detail made public... all i know is a lot of tech companies struggled after the .com bubble, many companies fired workers, many companies had disagreements over how to fix issues so many CEOs got replaced during that time that had much restructuring

 

really she was doing fine until the whole tech industry went bust... i cant claim for sure it was all circumstances... but i suspect being CEO during a stock market crash that originated from the tech sector (hence why it was called the ".com bubble"), i think troubles and fires were innevitable... and of course her opponents will use this as leverage against her

 

Anyway ive seen all kinds of interviews from different candidates and shes impressed me the most with her logic and reasoning

 

And i know shes quite conservative, most republicans are... what i meant was, shes not as hardcore and many republicans so its a bonus

 

id vote on economy over social issues personally cause i feel like that impacts ppls lives more... but if shes less hardcore than most republicans, great, the trade off aint as bad. shes at least in support of civil unions and full rights for the LGBT, she also would only ban abortion for after 5 months into pregnanccy. Not as conservative as most Republicans

[SKANK 14,288]

she was highly regarded and for 6 years in a row ranked #1 business woman in one of the major US magazines... she was the first woman to be CEO of a top 20 Corporation in the world... she grew the company a lot

 

I do not know every detail of her firing and circumstances nor is every detail made public... all i know is a lot of tech companies struggled after the .com bubble, many companies fired workers, many companies had disagreements over how to fix issues so many CEOs got replaced during that time that had much restructuring

 

really she was doing fine until the whole tech industry went bust... i cant claim for sure it was all circumstances... but i suspect being CEO during a stock market crash that originated from the tech sector (hence why it was called the ".com bubble"), i think troubles and fires were innevitable... and of course her opponents will use this as leverage against her

 

Anyway ive seen all kinds of interviews from different candidates and shes impressed me the most with her logic and reasoning

 

And i know shes quite conservative, most republicans are... what i meant was, shes not as hardcore and many republicans so its a bonus

 

id vote on economy over social issues personally cause i feel like that impacts ppls lives more... but if shes less hardcore than most republicans, great, the trade off aint as bad

Social and economical issues are inseparable most of the time, like Fionaira being opposed to any sort of federal mandate requiring business to give a woman paid maternity leave, something you lucky Canuks have.

Everyone is entitled to their own outlook on politics and life, I just can't imagine living a life that is so monetarily motivated, like you or Fiorina.

[Economy 53,134]

 

Social and economical issues are inseparable most of the time, like Fionaira being opposed to any sort of federal mandate requiring business to give a woman paid maternity leave, something you lucky Canuks have.

Everyone is entitled to their own outlook on politics and life, I just can't imagine living a life that is so monetarily motivated, like you or Fiorina.

thats fair enough... like i respect ur views dont get me wrong

 

but i cant agree... unfortunately money is required for everything, and when the economy fails, everything fails... eventually even the social programs themselves

 

It might surprise you to know this but im not actually against socialism in itself, but rather the governments ability to run it...

 

most things in life have more than 1 way of doing things... but usually theres an easier way, and a harder way. Both Socialism and Capitalism have pros and cons...

 

But the thing about socialism is that its much easier to screw up... more regulations and taxes means your giving the Government more power to decide how businesses should be run, and how more of the countries wealth will be spent... The private sector due to profit motives tend to be as efficient as possible... Government tends to be inneficient and incompetent... Thats why Canada post for instance charges more for shipping than private companies yet somehow still manages to post a loss and has to cover it with tax payers money

 

If a Government can manage an economy well, if they can be competent, efficient, rational and work co-operatively among own party etc, then sometimes socialism can work. Some scandinavian Countries pulled it off nicely

 

But the vast majority of Governments are too incompetent to run things so socialism is a bad idea for those Nations. Greece and Venezuela are perfect examples. Totally destroyed by poor socialism. I think a dysfunctional government like the US would fail as badly at socialism as Greece tbh

 

Here in Canada for example, our Left-Winged Ontario Government has managed to mess up everything it touches. They said they were gonna "fix" our hydro system when they came into power in 2003. I dunno what the hell they did but in the past 12 years electricity rates have trippled to 15 cents/KW and are projected to rise another 42% within next 5 years and manufacturers are fleeing to Quebec or US states where electricity is cheaper

 

They have managed to run bigger deficits than Federal Government (how is that possible? i dont even know), we have huge debt, and everything is one big bloated bureaucracy. For the first time in History Ontario is now below National average by most economic measures. Perfect example of a government that couldnt handle the complexities and precisions required to make socialism work. Again, socialism requires much competence!

[SKANK 14,288]

thats fair enough... like i respect ur views dont get me wrong

 

but i cant agree... unfortunately money is required for everything, and when the economy fails, everything fails... eventually even the social programs themselves

 

It might surprise you to know this but im not actually against socialism in itself, but rather the governments ability to run it...

 

most things in life have more than 1 way of doing things... but usually theres an easier way, and a harder way. Both Socialism and Capitalism have pros and cons...

 

But the thing about socialism is that its much easier to screw up... more regulations and taxes means your giving the Government more power to decide how businesses should be run, and how more of the countries wealth will be spent... The private sector due to profit motives tend to be as efficient as possible... Government tends to be inneficient and incompetent... Thats why Canada post for instance charges more for shipping than private companies yet somehow still manages to post a loss and has to cover it with tax payers money

 

If a Government can manage an economy well, if they can be competent, efficient, rational and work co-operatively among own party etc, then sometimes socialism can work. Some scandinavian Countries pulled it off nicely

 

But the vast majority of Governments are too incompetent to run things so socialism is a bad idea for those Nations. Greece and Venezuela are perfect examples. Totally destroyed by poor socialism. I think a dysfunctional government like the US would fail as badly at socialism as Greece tbh

 

Here in Canada for example, our Left-Winged Ontario Government has managed to mess up everything it touches. They said they were gonna "fix" our hydro system when they came into power in 2003. I dunno what the hell they did but in the past 12 years electricity rates have trippled to 15 cents/KW and are projected to rise another 42% within next 5 years and manufacturers are fleeing to Quebec or US states where electricity is cheaper

 

They have managed to run bigger deficits than Federal Government (how is that possible? i dont even know), we have huge debt, and everything is one big bloated bureaucracy. For the first time in History Ontario is now below National average by most economic measures. Perfect example of a government that couldnt handle the complexities and precisions required to make socialism work. Again, socialism requires much competence!

 

Everything you said is perfectly reasonable.