Type to search

Carly Fiorina Ends Campaign — With A Parting Shot At Hillary Clinton

Campaign 2016 Featured Post Politics Top News

Carly Fiorina Ends Campaign — With A Parting Shot At Hillary Clinton


Carly Fiorina dropped out of the Republican presidential race on Wednesday, bringing to a close a candidacy that started out in the minor leagues before shooting up to the pros — at least for a while.

Fiorina came in seventh place in the Iowa caucuses, and then in seventh place again in the New Hampshire primary.

“This campaign was always about citizenship — taking back our country from a political class that only serves the big, the powerful, the wealthy, and the well connected,” Fiorina said in a statement posted on Facebook. “Election after election, the same empty promises are made and the same poll-tested stump speeches are given, but nothing changes. I’ve said throughout this campaign that I will not sit down and be quiet. I’m not going to start now. While I suspend my candidacy today, I will continue to travel this country and fight for those Americans who refuse to settle for the way things are and a status quo that no longer works for them.”

She also had a message to young women voters — a sort of last shot against Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, and her campaign surrogates’ fumbled attempts to get them into the tent against Bernie Sanders.

To young girls and women across the country, I say: do not let others define you. Do not listen to anyone who says you have to vote a certain way or for a certain candidate because you’re a woman. That is not feminism. Feminism doesn’t shut down conversations or threaten women. It is not about ideology. It is not a weapon to wield against your political opponent. A feminist is a woman who lives the life she chooses and uses all her God-given gifts. And always remember that a leader is not born, but made. Choose leadership.

At first an unlikely presidential candidate, Fiorina had a controversial tenure as CEO of computer company HP in the early 2000s and ran unsuccessfully for Senate from California in 2010, winning the Republican nomination but losing to incumbent Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer. But along the way, Fiorina did provide some surprises before fading out.

Fiorina’s performance in the first undercard debate was widely recognized, so much so that at the next debate the rules were changed to ensure another slot would be added in. (There had not been enough new national polls that showed her poll averages improving, but those that did exist suggested she should have become eligible.)

That debate saw her go head to head with Donald Trump, and briefly present a possible challenge to the celebrity candidate. At this and future debates, she both pitched herself as a Washington outsider and steadily dished out attacks against Hillary Clinton. ““In your heart of hearts,” she declared, “you cannot wait to see a debate between Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina,” implying that she would able to attack Clinton without alienating women voters.

She was also notable for making blatantly false statements about the anti-Planned Parenthood videos produced by pro-life activists, alleging that one video depicted “a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, ‘We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.’” (The videos actually contain conversation about the collection of fetal tissue, and were edited to include a separate video of what experts have said was a dying fetus from a miscarriage.)

But after several debate performances, she was busted back down to the undercard stage.

Toward the end of her campaign, she began making direct attacks on Hillary and Bill Clinton’s marriage and alleging that Hillary Clinton herself belonged in prison for her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state, and for fundraising by the Clinton Foundation.

The undercard debates ended after the Iowa caucuses, and Fiorina was left out entirely from last weekend’s debate on ABC News after she failed to qualify under ABC’s debate criteria. Fiorina protested the exclusion as “a rigged game,” and added that the “anybody-but-Carly network is afraid to have viewers see me because they know can I beat Hillary Clinton.”

Photo: U.S. Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina speaks at the Growth and Opportunity Party at the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines, Iowa, in this October 31, 2015, file photo. REUTERS/Brian C. Frank/Files



  1. 1standlastword February 10, 2016

    Maybe she can get her old job back at HP?! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. @HawaiianTater February 10, 2016

      Please never use the word snatch in reference to Carly ever again. It’s too horrifying to think about.

      1. Carolyn1520 February 11, 2016

        🙂 That was funny!

    2. dpaano February 11, 2016

      I can easily suggest an alternate place she can put it!

  2. Otto Greif February 10, 2016

    Trump hit her and she never recovered.

    1. JPHALL February 10, 2016

      Actually what did her in was her bad act as a Ann Coulter wannabe.

      1. Carolyn1520 February 11, 2016

        Yeah, because Ann Coulter is someone no woman wants to see anyone emulate. 😀

        1. Cloudherder February 11, 2016

          I threw up in my mouth a little thinking of both Ann Coulter and Carly Fiorina at the same time. Please, stop.

    2. Carolyn1520 February 11, 2016

      No, smart women ignored her and she never recovered.

    3. jmprint February 11, 2016

      The baby that was still kicking kicked her but.

      1. Otto Greif February 11, 2016

        I don’t get it.

  3. CripesAmighty February 10, 2016

    Well, at least Carly’s presenting us with an opportunity for prosperity–just find out what company she’s gonna land at, and short it.

    1. Carolyn1520 February 11, 2016

      I’m still pissed off about my Lucent Technologies stock loss thanks to lying Carly. 🙂

  4. Dominick Vila February 10, 2016

    Good riddance Carly…and Christie! It takes nerve for a member of the Republican party to claim that she was fighting against a political class that put the interests of corporations and wealthy Americans ahead of the general populace, while being part of the party that promotes and protects the status quo. It takes nerve for Republicans who silenced organized labor and denied a voice blue collar workers, and their ability to bargain from a position of strength, to suggest they are fighting for the rights of the average citizen. It takes nerve, after years of resisting raising the minimum wage, or even accepting the fact that income inequality is a major problem in America, to claim that they (the Republicans) are fighting for the interests of the average American. It takes nerve for members of a party that has supported every international trade agreement, because it benefits American corporations, to pretend they are fighting for the little guy. Go away Carly. Go away Christie. I hope the rest of the gang of greedy elitists joins you soon.

    1. mike February 10, 2016

      Dom, more baloney on republicans and unions. Just look at teachers in Wisconsin when given a choice of paying dues or not the state Wisconsin Education Assoc. Coucil has dropped by 40%. AFSME counci has dropped by 88%.
      When given a choice people walked away.
      In “83” to “2015” unions public/private have gone from 20% of work force to 11%.
      All done by republicans. Ridiculous!
      You’ve got nerve to make such asinine statements.?

      1. Independent1 February 11, 2016

        What a load of garbage!! It’s GOP-run state after GOP-run state that is working to kill unions with their pay-you-as-little-as-possible laws which have resulted in GOP-run states average incomes being 18-23% lower than in Dem-run states. And all that is partly the cause of why 27 of the 31 states which survey groups have projected have the most people living on the verge of bankruptcy are all GOP-run states!! You are such a fraud that it’s hard to imagine you can even sleep with yourself and your fabrications!!

        1. mike February 11, 2016

          Dom blamed republicans who “silenced organized labor and denied a voice blue collar workers” which is a load of poop. That’s the topic not your regurgitation of ridiculous left wing talking points.
          Show specifically where republicans have silenced or denied blue collar workers in today’s world
          When given a choice Wisconsin union members stopped paying union dues. The state said they would no longer take union dues out of their checks. They were given a choice and exercised there right to refuse.

          1. Cher February 11, 2016

            Please fill me in. Are police and firefighters fleeing their unions in Wisconsin? Everywhere I have lived, those public unions are the strongest and their members traditionally loyal. I will believe that people don’t want unions when I can see police and firefighters rejecting them. After all, police and firefighters are salt of the earth average Anericans. Please give me examples where they say unions are bad or should be optional.

          2. mike February 11, 2016

            There’s a simple answer, Police and Firemen unions were not included in the restrictions imposed by the state. What the Police and Firemen can’t do is negiotate over design of their healthcare.
            Police and Firemen are the salt of the earth absolutely.
            When given a choice the public sector employees walked away from the unions.
            I know you can give the reason why Ford is doubling their output and plant size in Mexico, can’t you??

          3. Cher February 11, 2016

            I don’t know that the healthcare negotiation situation that you refer to is true in all states. I know that in the state I lived in until recently, when the local newspaper reported the top wage earners for public employees, it was always police and fire with a salary range of $150,000-$250,000. I worked one year as a public employee in a community college in Illinois many years ago and although represented by the union, had an option to pay the dues or not. I opted to pay them as I felt the union was responsible for the wonderful cafeteria plan of benefits that we had so it seemed that to accept those benefits without paying the dues was the right thing to do.

            Before you try to label me as a left wing Union sympathizer, I do want to mention that that I grew up in a family that was management and not union and that in my own career, I have definitely eliminated a significant number of union jobs, creating higher level salaried positions.

            As to your Mexico comment, the challenge is that as Americans, we are not willing to accept the extremely low wages of Mexico as well as their working conditions.

          4. jmprint February 11, 2016

            “not included in the restrictions imposed by the state. ” Is that not the answer you are looking for they dropped because of the restriction imposed by the state.

          5. mike February 11, 2016

            Wage negotiation was never restricted.
            You still miss the point. When union members were given a choice to pay or not to pay they chose not to pay

          6. Paul Bass February 11, 2016

            mike has no example of anything, he is a troll on this site who loves to be hated, pretty pathetic actually. His upvote rating is less than 1/3. He’s vying with otto for the ted cruz “most hated by their peers” award. I think he is winning….

          7. Cher February 11, 2016

            Thanks, Paul. That explains his non-answer.

          8. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            What’s wrong with you?? The GOP has worked to silence blue collar workers in every state where they’ve past right-to-pay-you-less laws!!! Wake up dummy . Wisconsin has done that and Walker has worked tirelessly to destroy the unions that speak for blue collar workers!! You can’t be that stupid!!!

          9. mike February 11, 2016

            Time to document “GOP has silenced blue collar workers”.
            Show the world where the republicans have denied choice.
            The only doofus is you.
            Tell me why when given a choice teachers walked away from unions from 40% to 88%.

          10. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            You’re siting one example and I’m not even buying those numbers. That situation could easily have happened through coercion of some type in Wisconsin. That’s not a typical result that you can site. Given the deviousness of Walker I wouldn’t anything past what might have happened in WI.

          11. mike February 11, 2016

            You’re an effin idiot.
            Show the world with documentation that “GOP has silenced blue collar workers”.

          12. mike February 11, 2016

            “Coercion” what a load of crap.
            I have many more but I don’t expect you to acknowledge the truth.

          13. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            Oh come on!! Walkers a known crook who’s not beyond bribery and coercion. And you don’t really expect me to believe anything that’s published by that right-wing rag website you just posted?? Do you?? Get real!!

            Why would you suppose that workers’ incomes have plummeted and income inequality has soared ever since Reagan destroyed the Air Traffic Controllers Union and started brainwashing Americans into believing that unions are evil???

          14. mike February 11, 2016

            You sound more imbecilic even delusional each post.
            When given a choice, public sector employees in Wisconsin when not forced to pay union dues, they don’t! Pretty simple.

          15. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            Look at the chart below and see what happened to income growth among the elite and working classes during Reagan’s disastrous 8 years in office – America’s worst president ever!!!

          16. dpaano February 11, 2016

            Great chart….but Mikey “don’t need no stinkin” chart!” He’s never going to believe anything that he’s been told and he’s too lazy to even do the research that would prove that most of what he’s bloviating about is just GOP talking points, which are total lies!

          17. mike February 11, 2016

            Did union members leave the unions once they didn’t have to pay the dues??

          18. mike February 11, 2016

            Still off topic!
            When given a choice as to pay or not pay Union dues the employees of Wisconsin decided not to pay.Unions lost thousands of members. .

          19. kingartie1 February 11, 2016

            Why remain in a profession that is vilified, demeaned and underpaid like teachers? That’s another reason to target them: Walker and his pals don’t want the students to have respected, decently paid teachers because then they may improve their analytical and reasoning skills and can better see what a load of self-aggrandizing self-righteous self-important bovine excrement the right shovels to justify its hypocrisy and ignorance. As if Wisconsin is the only state in the country with labor unions. I haven’t heard that SEIU has lost members, or that the Teamsters have lost members, or that United Food has lost members. They can’t “silence” blue collar workers, that’s patently illegal, but they can manipulate the contracts, the budgets, the media, harass union leaders and members and so on to pressure the unions. Constantly threatening to ship jobs overseas, to refuse minimum wage increases, to cry poverty even when the company is profitable, are just some of the ways that pimp politicians and their corporate bosses squeeze and silence unions.

          20. dpaano February 11, 2016

            More teachers are quitting this career due to low pay, overcrowded classrooms, not given the opportunity to teach except for “teaching to the test,” and I could go on and on! If there were unions involved, these teachers would have more rights than they do now. I know several teachers who agree.

          21. mike February 11, 2016

            No one has vilified teachers. As to Walker keeping students less educated, what a load of garbage.

        2. kingartie1 February 11, 2016

          Union-busting is not only about some supposed ideology or matters of corporate P & L, organization, business policies, or anything of that nature. It’s also about payback; many unions small and large have been sufficiently independent in thought and action to refuse lockstep with the ol’ boy cliques that rule the boardrooms. The unions have long been the kingdoms of the average wage earner, heads of families, the descendants of former union members, and so on–the skilled labor who hold that populism, fairness and economic justice are non-negotiable tenets of the social contract. Those who seek and demand economic justice more often vote for a Democrat and/or contribute to their campaigns. To remove a key source of monetary and political support for counter- or anti-corporatism, and therefore of opposition to the ruling business class, weaken or bust the unions.
          It has NEVER BEEN JUST ABOUT profit or wages or working conditions. When Walker and his toxic ilk prattle about being philosophically opposed to unions, what they really mean is that one way to divide and conquer the political opposition and therefore keep themselves in power is to choke or amputate the unions’ support for politicians who promote social justice. The taxes that higher-wage union members contribute to the fiscal resource pool is almost beside the point, since those union members also contribute to causes and campaigns that are antithetical to the pathological obsessions of the Republicans.

          1. darkagesbegin February 11, 2016

            you got that right! If unions supported republicans you would not hear the end of praise for unions. they would be the greatest thing since sliced bread… It is only because they favor democrats that republicans see the need to shut them down.

          2. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            Yes, but unions also work to get employers to provide better benefits and pay for workers which would mean less money for company owners and stockholders to take home which Republicans also don’t favor. They favor letting CEOs and company owners stuff as much money IN THEIR POCKETS as is possible!! Reagan promoted that in spades!!!

        3. dpaano February 11, 2016

          The only facts that Mikey has are the ones that he’s made up in his little pea brain…..or the ones that he’s been fed by FAUX News and the other idiot talk show hosts of these conservative outlets! He has NO real facts or he’d just shut up and slink away!

      2. Independent1 February 11, 2016

        Yeah!! And is that why Wisconsin has fallen to 49th in the nation in job creation?? And the state is now projecting 2 billion dollar deficits through 2017?? Wisconsin is plummeting with respect to virtually every aspect of the states economy!! Nice try loser!!!

        1. mike February 11, 2016

          I see you are Talking stupidly again!

          1. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            In the mind of a total moron!!

        2. dpaano February 11, 2016

          You may want to also mention Kansas (under Brownback) and Louisiana….both of which are on the verge of bankruptcy due to their “trickle down” economics that they got from Reagan!

          1. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            Yes, good points!!

      3. Independent1 February 11, 2016

        And why do you suppose it’s only 14 Blue states that pay enough in taxes to the federal government to keep America afloat?? There are only 3 red states that get back less in federal aid than they pay in taxes, and all 3 of those get back more than 96 cents on the dollar. It’s only 14 Blue States that get back less than 90 cents on the dollar a number of them close to 60 cents on the dollar that are really supporting America!! (It’s because companies in red states get away with paying such cheap wages that red state residents pay next to nothing in taxes to support our country.)

        1. mike February 11, 2016

          Keep trying, no cigar! Again!

          1. bobnstuff February 11, 2016

            Mike show some FACTS supporting your stand. The republican run states say they want smaller government and to cut taxes but have no problem taking the money. Also look at the poverty rates in those states. If this isn’t the truth show proof.

          2. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            And when Republicans say they want smaller government, that’s just a ploy. When Reagan was in office, the Federal government grew by over 265,000. When GWB was in office, the federal government grew by over 50,000 and all governments combined: federal, state, county and local grew by over 950,000. All those have shrunk by over 700,000 under Obama.

          3. bobnstuff February 11, 2016

            Now, don’t be using facts, conservatives don’t like them.

          4. dpaano February 11, 2016

            Yeah, they have their own set of facts, all of which are wrong!

          5. Carolyn1520 February 11, 2016

            He’s a dung beetle. It’s not his nature to deal in facts. He’s only here to roll out the dung. 🙂

          6. mike February 11, 2016

            LOL!! Can’t refute the facts so you try and be funny.
            No surprise!

          7. bobnstuff February 11, 2016

            Most of your post are just slimy excretion so you might very well be a dung beetle.

          8. Carolyn1520 February 11, 2016

            You present no facts, bug boy, There’s nothing remotely funny about your ignorance.

          9. mike February 11, 2016

            There you go at humor but again you failed.
            Coming late as usual, you missed my position that “when given a choice to not pay union dues in Wisconsin the public sector employees thousands haved opt-out of paying the dues”. I have given the site to prove my point to idiot1,aka independent1, so go find it. Idiot1 just tries changing the subject to reflect the facts.

          10. Carolyn1520 February 11, 2016

            Again, there is no attempt at humor bug boy.
            Historically you are devoid of facts. I don’t waste my time anymore. That’s the problem when you present your opinions as facts. When you may be correct on a point because even blind squirrels find a nut occasionally too, no one bothers to read it because you are all about deflection and denial. And you miss the big picture completely.
            And for the record you’re wrong on this one.

          11. jmprint February 11, 2016

            They dropped out, but I bet they are regretting every move. In Wisconsin, Walker refuses to raise the minimum wage and equal pay legislation, rejected federal funds to expand Medicaid, and attacked Wisconsin workers with right to work legislation and anti-collective bargaining policies. As a result, the cost of doing business in Wisconsin is higher than the national average, and median household income in Wisconsin is thousands of dollars less than it is in Minnesota. Why do you republicans want to keep the conservative economics of destruction afloat?

          12. mike February 11, 2016

            Not by the latest statics they have regretted their move.
            National unions represent 11% Wisconsin after 5 years is 8.3%

          13. jmprint February 11, 2016

            Give it a year or two, when their wages and benefits become stagnant.

          14. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            And Mike is making an idiotic point – I’m sure members of the union he’s trying to site, know that unions in Wisconsin are going to have virtually no impact on their wages for at least as long as Republicans are in power and working to destroy any bargaining power unions have. So why should people that are not diehard union believers continue to pay union dues when unions in Wisconsin are nothing more than a moot effort (given all the right-to-work and antiunion bargaining legislation Walker was pushing).

          15. mike February 11, 2016

            That’s your opinion, again!
            It’s been 5 already in Wisconsin

          16. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            Here’s just one more example of your idiocy. You’re trying to make a point based on no commonsense. When people know that they live in a GOP-un state that is going to push for right-to-pay-you-less laws and also legislation that negates union bargaining – AS IS THE CASE IN WISCONSIN – why would anyone who is not a diehard union person, choose to stay as a member of a union – which in fact will have no bargaining power to further affect their wages – if they know they’re going to end up a few years from now having the same pay whether they belong to the union or not???
            Are you suggesting people are stupid?? That they should continue to pay union dues when the governor and legislature of their state is going to make unions a moot point??
            Come up with a similar union situation in a state that’s run by Democrats that support unions and will allow them to bargain for their membership. Siting Wisconsin is only a fools effort such as yours!!!!!

          17. mike February 11, 2016

            I sm sure you can show where they can’t negotiate wages. Right?
            They can negotiate wages but all the other(healthcare) they can’t.
            Something you like to ignore is that many employees are against the way unions use their money politically and when they were given the chance to stop paying, they did that.
            Acting foolish all yours.

          18. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            You wouldn’t know what a true fact was if it slapped you in the face!!!

          19. dpaano February 11, 2016

            Several of us have pointed out the facts, but your thick brain doesn’t want to admit that you’re wrong and you won’t take the time to do some research into your ridiculous comments.

          20. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            How much are they paying you to keep up your nonsensical lies and fabrications of reality??? No one deliberately ignores commonsense and keeps posting lies unless money is involved!!!

          21. mike February 11, 2016

            My stand from the very beginning has been, when given a choice to pay union dues or not, the nots walked away in droves.
            I sent idiot1 all that he needs.

          22. bobnstuff February 11, 2016

            If choosing between paying and free would you pick paying? There was no rank and file vote to get rid of the union.

          23. mike February 11, 2016

            They voted by not paying the dues.
            One union, Kenosha Edu. Assoc. decided to disband after being decertified by missing deadline in yearly reappliction.

          24. bobnstuff February 11, 2016

            I bet they didn’t give back the pay rate the union got them.

          25. dpaano February 11, 2016

            That’s all you got????

          26. jmprint February 11, 2016

            Wisconsin and Michigan—that passed “right-to-work” laws making it harder for unions to organize, the union membership rate fell significantly, while it actually rose slightly in a third state, Indiana.

          27. mike February 11, 2016

            As for Indiana that is fine. If they think they need it, then join. The important part is they have a choice not found in the other states where they are forced to join.

          28. jmprint February 11, 2016

            The point is with the choice they will not have a choice in good wages.

          29. mike February 11, 2016

            That’s your opinion.

          30. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            Really, and there you go disputing reality again – fact is the wages of people living in right-to-work states are 18-23% lower than people in states without those laws. So it’s not jmprint’s opinion – it is reality!!

          31. jmprint February 12, 2016

            No it’s not an opinion, it’s a fact based on the last three decades of the minimum wage being kept low intentionally, by your stupid, ignorant republican leaders.

          32. mike February 12, 2016

            Thanks for another gnorant opinion.

          33. dpaano February 11, 2016

            Again, Mikey, you may want to fact check this…..it might help you to realize how wrong you are!!! What Independent1 says is the truth…..the taxpayers in the Blue states keep most of the Red states above water!!! More people in these states are under water, unemployment is very high, yearly income is very low, poverty rates are extremely high, and I could go on and on. Try to take some valuable time and check out the facts and quit trying to make us think you know what you’re talking about!

          34. jmprint February 11, 2016

            Plenty of smoke coming out of your end.

          35. mike February 11, 2016

            LOL!! Another of your posts of you acting stupidly.

          36. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            The only one stupid here is you imbecile!! Have you noted that you don’t even have one upvote on all your nonsensical posts???

          37. jmprint February 11, 2016

            Hey, no cigar, plenty of smoke, at least mine is an act. Sucks to be you.

          38. mike February 11, 2016

            Stupid acting continues

          39. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            Is the pay really that good for you to continue with your lies and idiocy?? Clearly you’re no Christian. Otherwise you would realize that God lumps liars in with murderers as far as being destined for the fire!!

          40. jmprint February 12, 2016

            Still blowing smoke out of your ears.

          41. mike February 12, 2016

            You are still failing!?

      4. FireBaron February 11, 2016

        Gee, mike, I guess the facts do hurt after all.

        1. mike February 11, 2016

          For the left! ?

          1. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            Why don’t you come out here and tell us specifically what the left has done that’s been detrimental to our country trying to move forward.

            Is it the fact that there’s been 71 straight months of jobs growth – which is actually almost 2 years longer than under any previous president in history?

            Is it the fact that the stock market has more than doubled under Obama making life much easier for retirees like me and millions of others?

            Is it the fact that because Obama was willing to resurrect the auto industry (such that it’s earning profits today that it hadn’t seen since Clinton was in office) and applied a stimulus which kept America out of another GOP full fledge depression; which allowed Big Oil to start exploring oil such that America is today the largest energy producer on the planet??

            Is it the fact that Obama has kept his promise to back us out and keep us out of wars, that there are most likely thousands of American soldiers not being killed like under the last GOP nitwit president??

            Is it the fact that there are more high school graduate attending college today(percentage wise) than at any other time in our history because Obama went around Congress and actually put in changes to the college loan process so more HS grads could afford to go to college??

            Is it the fact that Obama instituted a war on fraud in the defense and healthcare industries bringing more people trying to defraud our government and recovering billions more in fraud money than under any previous president??

            Is it the fact that Obama decided to focus on deporting the illegal immigrants who were really creating a problem in America such that he has deported more troublesome illegals who were really costing us money than any other previous president??

            Or is it because unlike the last GOP presidents he’s not running up deficits, starting wars, and implementing laws that put more onerous regulations on our lives which actually require a larger government by tens of thousands of more government people???

            What is it that the left has done??? Come on!! Let’s here it!!!

          2. mike February 11, 2016

            Off topic again.
            71 months of job increase of which the vast majority are low paying, part-time. Not even close to past recessions where the good paying jobs came back.

            Obama has nothing to do with stock market. The Federal Reserve because of the poor economy is the reason the market has grown.

            Obama has deported crap.Border patrol has been told to back off because the vast majority of illegals never show up for court dates. 2012, 410,00 deported. 2015, 230,000 deported.

            As to debt: what a laugh. Your head is still where the sun doesn’t shine. More major regulations undet Obama, a fact. More debt under Obama. Obama has doubled the debt in 7 years and by next year will be 20 trillion.

            One more time when union members are given a choice to not pay dues then walk away in droves.

          3. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            More of your lies and fabrications of the truth.

            The reason there have been so many low paying jobs created the past 7 plus years is because of what I was just pointing out to you: the GOP passing righto-pay-you-less legislation. It is BY FAR, RED STATES where the low paying jobs have been created – and Texas is a classic example of that. (And the fact that the GOP has refused to pass a min wage increase law!!!)

            And if presidents don’t have anything to do with the stock market, why is it that since 1930 when Republicans were in office, the stock market gain has actually been NEGATIVE over their 42 years in office, while under Democrats it has been over 300% in their 43 years in office?? (More of your lies!!)

            And I’m not going even waste my time rebutting the rest of your lies and fabrications of the truth!!

          4. mike February 11, 2016

            I see you are still having diarrhea of the brain problem.
            Presidents don’t have anything to do with the decision making of the Fed. Reserve.

            You haven’t refuted any facts you keep throwing poop against the wall and hope it sticks.

          5. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            The Fed has absolutely nothing to do with the Stock Market – where you did you come up with that BS??? It has no more influence than the economic conditions guided by the legislation signed into law by the sitting president. And if the president doesn’t have any influence – explain why the differences between stock market gains under Republicans vs Democrats is so striking!!!

          6. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            Well, you said presidents don’t have anything to do with boosting stock market, so if that’s true, then the Fed doesn’t either.

            You’re clearly ignoring the fact that presidents select the Fed chairman; and presidents set economic policy; although the Fed operates somewhat independently, the Fed chairman still meets with the president and is guided by his economic objectives.

            For you to dispel history: the fact that under Dem presidents over 43 years have guided the economy in a way that has encouraged investors and thereby resulted in over 300% in gains – while Republicans have historically killed the economy and trashed the stock market which has discouraged investors. Of 17 recessions and 3 depressions that have occurred since 1900, 14 of the recessions and all the depressions occurred while a Republican was in office!!!!!!

            You have to be an absolute imbecile to totally ignore history!!!!!!

          7. mike February 11, 2016

            You got it wrong again!
            Live and Learn.
            Reading the first first paragraph pretty much destroys your whole argument.

          8. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            And by the way dumbcoff – unfortunately, Forbes publishes articles by right-wing idiots. So stop posting those written by right-wing biased idiots!!!

          9. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            And where’s this list of all the things that the left has done which has been negative with respect to moving America forward. You don’t even want to get me started on all that the GOP has done to keep America from truly moving into the 21st Century!!

          10. dpaano February 11, 2016

            What you apparently haven’t realized is that President Obama has added less debt to our current debt than any other president before him. Yes, there is added debt, but it isn’t as much as the free-spending Republicans ran up in their various administrations! You may want to fact check that if you don’t believe me.

          11. mike February 11, 2016

            He will have doubled the debt when he leaves office. Right now it is at 19 trillion it was 10.6 trillion when took office.
            Under Bush he added 4.899 trillion to debt. Only you would think Obama added less.
            You ignorance is breathtaking.

          12. dpaano February 11, 2016

            No, Mikey, YOUR ignorance is breath taking! There were several articles in several newspapers and on line very recently that clearly pointed out that President Obama has caused the debt to rise by a less percentage than either Bush or Reagan. Maybe you might want to start reading a REAL newspaper. You also seem to conveniently forget that Bush failed to add his trillion dollar war debt to the budget, along with the debt for his his expensive Medicare bill. President Obama ended up inheriting that debt, and he’s paid that off, which accounts for the higher debt showing up now……most of that $19 trillion was from Bush’s administration…try deducting that old debt he inherited and you’ll see that the debt he’s incurred is WAAAAY less than any GOP president (I believe they said his actual debt was around $3 trillion). Maybe they have a book that you can read entitled “The U.S. Debt for Dummies.” That might help you to understand, but I seriously doubt it because you only want to believe what YOU want to believe and NOT the actual truth.

          13. mike February 11, 2016

            Deny that debt isn’t over 19 trillion and rising. Your % argument means nothing.
            Surprised you didn’t document your arguments from REAL newspaper articles.
            No you can’t read, I said 4.899 trillion.

          14. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            The debt is 19.1 trillion and will rise this year by the smallest amount since before 2003. And despite what you’d like to believe, virtually all of what’s being added to our debt today are costs related to wars and legislation that Bush signed into law THAT WERE UNFUNDED!! Bush and the irresponsible Congresses in office before 2006, passed numerous unfunded pieces of legislation knowing that it would run up deficits for years to come!!!!!!

          15. mike February 11, 2016

            Actually, deficit will increase by another 150 billion from original projection.
            Anyway you work the numbers Obama debt is more than bush.

          16. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            Sorry dummy, not true, because based on legislation that Obama has signed, he can’t be charged with any more than 1 trillion of the debt increase since he’s been in office.

            And it’s the Tea Party led GOP House that has been totally ignoring Obama’s budgets for the past 5-6 years that have been responsible for all the spending DURING THAT TIME!! So if anyone is to blame for the debt on top of Bush – it’s the Tea Party led House of Reps!!

            You worthless right-wing nuts refuse to realize that Bush set up all these deficits when he trashed the economy and signed scores of unfunded legislation that he and the Republicans in Congress knew would run up deficits for decades to come unless that unfunded legislation was repealed. So far only a small portion of the unfunded tax cuts Bush signed into law have been repealed; the majority of those tax cuts are still causing deficits!!

            I know you worthless pieces of crap want to keep foisting the responsibility for the ongoing deficits on Obama, but give that spending during Obama’s presidency has seen the lowest annual budget percent increases in the past 50 years – trying to blame him for the deficits is just one more fools action that you’re trying to foist of of Bush and the GOP and IT AIN’T GOING TO FLY!!!!!!

          17. mike February 11, 2016

            Typical response from you!
            I know you can provide the documentation where you came up with this ridiculous number . No left wing piece but from a neutral source showing the methodology.

          18. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            Obama has only signed 2 pieces of legislation that could add to the deficit: the Stimulus in 2009 and Obamacare in 2010. The Stimulus was implemented to keep America from falling into another GOP manufactured depression and is therefore chargeable to Bush.

            So the only thing left is Obamacare and 1 trillion is way overboard on that because ACA is saving states and taxpayers billions by reducing the uninsured and readmissions rates in states across the nation that have implemented ACA or expanded Medicaid!!

            Let me see you come up with another piece of legislation that Obama has signed which would significantly add to the deficit – given that since 2011 it is the GOP-run House of Reps that has set every budget within which Obama has had to function; actually refusing to fund a number of initiatives that Obama would have liked to have pushed forward.

          19. mike February 11, 2016

            Don’t give me your interpretation! Produce the documentation

          20. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            Go suck wind!! I don’t have to produce any documentation. You have absolutely nothing that you can identify that actually puts any responsibility on Obama for any of our deficits!! Fact is virtually every bit of our debt was either personally run up by Bush or is a result of the absolute fraud that he and Cheney perpetrated on the American people!! Bush allowed the Great Recession to happen which killed the economy, trashed millions of jobs and thousands of companies – resulting in more than 1/2 trillion/yr in lost tax revenues that together with his irresponsible signing of unfunded legislation and wars drove up America’s debt And you like every other right-winger today are nothing but total dirtbags when you get on our high horses and try to foist the blame for everything that Bush and Cheney caused to happen on Obama.

          21. mike February 11, 2016

            You’re an elfin idiot.
            Produce or shut up. You made statements that you believe are true produce documentation.
            If you don’t then you are intellectually dishonest.
            You can’t so go suck wind.

          22. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            Don’t forget dirtbag, that Georgie Boy negotiated Tarp and set up the auto bailout before he left office – and included the costs associated with implementing those in his 10/1/2008 to 9/30./2009 budget. You lied through your teeth about his budget not being 1.9 billion IN DEFICITS BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT IT WAS!!!!!!!!

          23. mike February 11, 2016

            Bush budget proposed deficit 406 billion, actual deficit 1.4 billion.

            Keep trying! No Cigar again.

          24. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            That may be what Bush proposed in February of 2008 but that’s not what his budget ended up being.

            See this dumbcoff from the Cato Institute:

            The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. So is we update the chart to show the Bush fiscal years in green, we can see that Obama is partly right in claiming that he inherited a mess (though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush’s last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an “omnibus” spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending).

            Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit


          25. mike February 11, 2016

            The budget was in place in late Aigust early September but not signed by bush but by Obama.
            So what is it 1.9 as you have stated or 1.4 that I stated?

          26. Independent1 February 12, 2016

            Yeah! But are you too cluless to remember that all Hell broke lose in mid September when a number of financial industry companies suddenly collapsed, sending the home industry sector into a tailspin with banks starting to foreclose, and the auto industry suddenly went into threats of bankruptcy so Bush had to scramble to cover his butt!! What’s the matter with you dumbcoff!! It was mid December when the Republicans in Congress suddenly refused to go along with all of Bush’s plans and left everything hanging!! BUT IT WAS BUSH THAT NEGOTIATED ALL THE 1.4 T IN SPENDING!!


          27. mike February 12, 2016

            Bush wasn’t in office so how could he negotiate anything. Obama signed it in March 2009. I know you substantiate that claim also.
            Hell, only in your world is Obama blameless.

          28. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            And that 406 B was only the deficit spending he agreed to include in his budget; it doesn’t include the 300-500 billion of deficit spending on the wars that he refused to put into his budget.

          29. mike February 12, 2016

            Produce the facts that shows wars not included in deficit.

          30. Independent1 February 12, 2016

            The 408 Billion deficit spending projected in Bush’s budget did not include the costs of Bush’s wars.

            How the US public was defrauded by the hidden cost of the Iraq war

            The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the occupation. By one estimate, 70% of the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008 were funded with supplemental or emergency appropriations approved outside the Pentagon’s annual budget. These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield the Pentagon’s budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the war, to keep the Pentagon’s pet programs intact and to escape the scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular appropriations.

            When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration estimated that it would cost $50-60bn to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a functioning government. This estimate was catastrophically wrong: the war in Iraq has cost $823.2bn between 2003 and 2011. Some estimates suggesting that it may eventually cost as much as $3.7tn when factoring in the long-term costs of caring for the wounded and the families of those killed.


          31. Independent1 February 12, 2016

            Do you see that projection that the costs of the Afghan and Irag wars may eventually rise from 800 plus Billion to 3.7 trillion over the years factoring in the costs of caring for the soldiers and their families of the soldiers killed and maimed?? Well, guess how many billions of dollars are being added each year SINCE GEORGIE BOY LEFT OFFICE (EVEN IN 2016) DOING JUST THAT!!

            Adding hundreds of billions every year to the deficit to care for our veterans and their families DRVING UP THE DEBT UNDER OBAMA!!!!! GO SUCK WIND YOU ABSOLUTE TURD OF A PERSON!!!

            You and your dirtbag friends that love a political party that puts the lives of the already too wealthy above the lives of the vast majority of Americans MAKE ME SICK!!!!!!!!!!!

          32. mike February 12, 2016

            You said: And that 406 B was only the deficit spending he agreed to include in his budget; it doesn’t include the 300-500 billion of deficit spending on the wars that he refused to put into his budget.

            I said: Produce the facts that shows wars not included in deficit.
            You can’t because the truth is the costs were in the Budget and help cause the deficits.

          33. Independent1 February 12, 2016

            I posted an article on Bush not putting the wars in his budget – I have no idea where it went to. Here it is again:

            Michael Boyle – How the US public was defrauded by the hidden cost of the Iraq war

            The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the occupation. By one estimate, 70% of the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008 were funded with supplemental or emergency appropriations approved outside the Pentagon’s annual budget. These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield the Pentagon’s budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the war, to keep the Pentagon’s pet programs intact and to escape the scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular appropriations .

            When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration estimated that it would cost $50-60bn to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a functioning government. This estimate was catastrophically wrong: the war in Iraq has cost $823.2bn between 2003 and 2011. Some estimates suggesting that it may eventually cost as much as $3.7tn when factoring in the long-term costs of caring for the wounded and the families of those killed


          34. mike February 12, 2016

            This shows just how lazy and uninformed you are.
            Again. Were the cost of wars in his budgets? Yes or No? You said they weren’t.

            Quit wasting my time!

          35. Independent1 February 12, 2016

            Talk about being totally dense!! The costs associated with the wars WERE NOT IN THE BUDGETS THAT BUSH PASSED TO CONGRESS AND WERE ANNOUNCED TO THE PUBLIC.



          36. mike February 12, 2016

            If you had answered the original request this would all be moot. But you could only try and change the subject.

            Several posts before I asked you: Produce the facts that shows wars not included in deficit.

            Then I asked you again after your post..

            You said: And that 406 B was only the deficit spending he agreed to include in his budget; it doesn’t include the 300-500 billion of deficit spending on the wars that he refused to put into his budget.

            I said: Produce the facts that shows wars not included in deficit.

            You can’t because we know that they were hidden
            Yes I meant deficit but wrote budget. The above questions/requests show that I was talking about th DEFICIT.

            So one more time: Produce the facts that shows wars not included in deficit.

            How about this. Did the Bush deficits include the cost of the wars?
            YES or NO!!

          37. Independent1 February 12, 2016

            You know where you can go – all you have to do is a search on the internet for Bush costs not in his budget and you’ll find numerous articles WHICH PROVE THE WAR COSTS WERE NOT IN HIS BUDGET. YOU CAN GO STRAIGHT YOU KNOW WHERE!!! DUMMY!!!!! GOODBYE DIRTBAG!!!!!!!

          38. mike February 12, 2016

            Here you go again! Change the subject, deflect, deflect, deflect.
            The orginal request was for you to “produce the documentation that war costs were not in the deficitt.” Nothing about in the budget in orginal post.

          39. Independent1 February 12, 2016

            And just for your edification dummy, our debt on 9/30/2015 was 18.1+ trillion dollars; on 11/1/2015, the next day, the debt was 18.5+ trillion. My guess is, that on the 1st day of each fiscal year, the Treasury probably books costs for things like unfunded legislation which they probably don’t have a bucket for since they were unfunded; things like unfunded state mandated legislation like the disastrous ‘No Child Left Behind’ fiasco that almost bankrupted half our states; or the unfunded Medicare Part D drug benefit giveaway to Big Pharma, or the unfunded war costs which the Treasury said they will be amortizing off each year for the next 8-9 decades all thanks to George Bush. (This year it was over 350 Billion they booked on 11/1/2015.)

          40. mike February 12, 2016

            Was the cost of the wars in the Bush deficits? Yes or No?
            Here for your edification are the numbers today. 19+ trillion.

          41. Independent1 February 12, 2016

            And by the way dirtbag – Reagan started that keeping spending out of his budgets and that devious act was followed by both Bushes. One reason deficits jumped under Obama is he recinded that devious practice.

          42. mike February 12, 2016

            More ridiculous statements again,
            You haven’t answered the question, Were the cost of wars in the Bush deficits? Yes or No?

          43. Polana February 11, 2016

            As Importer and CPA U R WRONG.

          44. mike February 11, 2016

            Baloney! So debt isn’t 19 trillion?

          45. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            Sorry but you’re conveniently forgetting to include that Georgie Boy passed onto Obama a budget with 1.9T of deficit spending; 1.4T that had not been spent yet when Obama took office!! – Georgie is responsible for 12T of debt through his last budget. And that doesn’t include the devastated economy with more than 8 million lost jobs and thousands of companies that had gone belly up

          46. mike February 11, 2016

            No, Bush’s last budget had a deficit of around 400 billion. Obama with his massive spending took it to about 1.5 trillion. Another inconvenient truth.
            Debt at 10+ trillion when Obama took office, today over 19 trillion. When he leaves office it is prijected to be over 20 trillion.

          47. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            More of your outright lies!! Go bury your head in the sand troll – your lies are getting disgusting!!

          48. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            And the vast majority of the debt that has been added under Obama, is the result of the large of unfunded wars and legislation that Bush signed into law during his disastrous 8 years THAT ARE STILL RUNNING UP DEFICITS.

            Bushes wars are being written off every year and adding to our deficits – in fact, they well be written off for the next 8-9 decades!! Yes, George Bush is still adding to the rise of America’s debt!! Hundreds of billions a year!! In fact, it’s quite likely, that without the unfunded tax cuts, the unfunded wars, the unfunded drug benefit added to Medicare and the unfunded state mandates – all of which are still adding to our debt each year – we may in fact not be running deficits today!!!

          49. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            You and your ilk are such disgusting people that you actually turn my stomach!!

          50. mike February 11, 2016


    2. Independent1 February 10, 2016

      It’s hard for me to understand how someone who made it to the boardroom of a major corporation can appear to be as totally delusional as Carly – I have to believe it’s all a programmed act done intentionally to deceive as many people as she possibly can. It’s hard to believe that there are really people that deceitful.

      1. bobnstuff February 11, 2016

        It’s not what you know but who you know in business today. Look at Bob Nardelli, He went from GE to Home Depot to Chrysler to Remington Arms without knowing anything about running a business. Carly is proof that the Peter Principle is alive and well.

        1. mike February 11, 2016

          Keep that anti-business ? going. No, he knows how to run a business, that is why a Board of Directors hired him. During the interview process he must have had some ideas that the hiring committee liked.
          If you think a corporation hires because they like the candidate over being qualified you are delusional.

          1. Independent1 February 11, 2016

            You know what’s killing business dumbcoff, is the GOP’s refusal to raise the min wage or even provide help to the poor. Resulting in less and less people who have the money to spend on the products and services that businesses need in order to make money. Just how long do dumbcoffs like you think that businesses can keep going when corporations and the wealthy have started pulling trillions of dollars out of the economy and putting it into accounts over seas.

            Corporations and the wealthy have already horded over 95% of the wealth in the country, leaving the people who would buy their products and services with virtually no money to spend for them to make profits!!

            It’s a matter of diminishing returns dummy!! How long do the billionaires and corporate CEOs think they can keep syphoning off money without reaching the point where there are going to be so few of the 80% of Americans who actually drive our economy with so little money that their profit levels are going to really start to plummet??

            And all that can be very clearly seen in red state upon red state across the country where nitwit Republicans constantly pass laws that trim budgets, cut funding for poor people, cut healthcare benefits – such that as I pointed out earlier, 27 of the 31 states that have their citizens living on the verge of bankruptcy are GOP-run states – that’s more than 90 percent of the GOP-run states in America. Doesn’t that give you a clue that what the GOP is doing IS OUTRIGHT WRONG????????

          2. mike February 11, 2016

            Keep spewing the diarrhea of the brain crap.
            Keep your head up your aSS. It must be getting tight up there with that bloated head filled with what you think is truth but really nonsensical junk.

          3. mike February 11, 2016

            Thanks for another delusional rant. You really are drinking the Kool-Aid of the radical left.
            What a mental midget you are.

          4. Polana February 11, 2016

            No he was drinking Flint water that Republican Gov.wanted to save money and get rid of black people. He is RIGHT.
            How that savings worked out for the republicans. Penny wise dollar foolish. Now they cry for help from the Government and President they despise. Flip flop, flip flop.
            Get ready to say Heil Trump. LOL

          5. mike February 11, 2016

            You are showing your ignorance of the facts. The Emergency Manager appointed by Snyder was a black democrat who worked with a democratic mayor and a democratic controlled city council.
            No official is without fault from local, state or federal.

          6. bobnstuff February 11, 2016

            Mr. Nardelli was give $17 million to leave Home Depot. While he was there stock pricnes dropped to less then $23 per share from almost $50. He had no clue how to run a home improvement company. Look at how well Chrysler did under his leadership. When he went to Washington for the handout he didn’t even know how to do that. A Board of Directors hire friends and people who are on other boards. Don’t take my word for it look at the people on the boards and who they pick.

          7. mike February 11, 2016

            Can you get anything right??
            He walked away with a package worth $210 million not that measly $17 million you claim.
            Wharton faculty and other experts called Narelli, “a talented former executive at GE” Home Depot must have seen something in him to offer him such a package when hired. His effort to centralize the company went against the “extremely entrepreneurial and customer focus”, which alienated the rank-and-file and stockholders. GE had a totally different business environment.
            But to say Boards hire friends and ignore qualifications is pure BS.

          8. Cloudherder February 11, 2016

            How would the Wharton School of Business faculty know what kind of executive at GE Nardelli was, behind closed doors? They grade his papers? That actually sounds more like the “who you know” that bobnstuff is trying to explain to you, than the what you know.
            I get the impression you have never known any corporate weasels personally?

          9. mike February 11, 2016

            Really? One of the top Business schools in the country wouldn’t know of him or his reputation from being “a breath away from taking Jack Welch’s position.” Could it be he was an invited guess speaker. No they knew exactly who he was!
            Business decisions are not made by who you know or who you are friends with. The board is responsible to the shareholders as is management. When it comes to money, friendships mean nothing, produce or get out of the way.
            Get your head out of the sand.

          10. bobnstuff February 11, 2016

            You really don’t know much about business or about friendships. Pick any of the top corporate boards and see who is on them. The same people will be on a number of them, it’s the old boys network. One of the reasons to go to a top schools is to get into it. I know you love Hillary and she was on Walmart’s board because she was a retail expert.

          11. mike February 11, 2016

            Again, friendships take you only so far in the business world. If one is not qualified, have not been successful in previous position, have good reputation, they don’t get job. Period!

          12. bobnstuff February 11, 2016

            How did Bob Nardelli get to run Home Depot.

            By 1995, he had risen to president and CEO of GE Power Systems, also
            having the title of GE senior vice president. Nardelli was often known
            as “Little Jack”, after his mentor Jack Welch, whom Nardelli had ambitions to succeed as CEO of GE. When Jack Welch retired as chairman and CEO of GE, a lengthy and well-publicized succession planning saga ensued. Nardelli competed with James McNerney and Jeffrey R. Immelt
            to succeed Welch. With Immelt winning the three-way race, Nardelli and
            McNerney left GE (as was Welch’s plan). About 10 minutes after Welch let
            him go, Nardelli received a job offer from Kenneth Langone, who at the time was on the boards of both GE and The Home Depot.

          13. bobnstuff February 11, 2016

            You are reading the PR, He got rid of and stop employing the ex pros and replaced then with part timers at low wages.He open the EXPO design centers going after the top end customers that were never going to buy from Home Depot but best of all he put in the worst inventory control system of any big box retailer. He got the job because of friends not because he had any back ground in the industry or in retail at all. He is the reason why when you go into the plumbing department you can’t find anyone who knows anything about plumbing. After he left he did as good a job for Chrysler as he did for Home Depot.

          14. mike February 11, 2016

            Keep trying! I guess you missed me saying he “alienated the rank-and-file.”
            If you think these high powered Board members make decisions based on friendships, then you are crazy.
            What you conveniently leave out is net earning rose from $2.58 billion to $5.82 billion, sales from $45 billion to $81 billion. What hurt him Lowes stock doubled while HD was not exciting in comparison, plus his 240 million compensation package had shareholders in an uproar.

          15. bobnstuff February 11, 2016

            The stock dropped like a rock. I started buying the stock just after he left at under $30 per share, I just sold it last month at $130 per share. His earnings came from selling of the distribution centers which they just replaced this year. They also cut store on hands. Lowes stocks went up 10% and there earnings never went over 2.6%

          16. mike February 11, 2016

            Like a rock, really!

            When Nardelli joined Home Depot HD, -0.45% as its chief in December 2000, the shares were trading at an average of $43.06. On Wednesday, the stock was changing hands at about $37.82, representing a 12% decline since Nardelli put on the familiar orange apron.

            That’s particularly rank to shareholders who do the math on shares of Home Depot’s biggest rival, Lowe’s Cos. LOW, -0.59% During the same period, which also included a changing of the guard, shares of Lowe’s have rocketed 187% from an average of $20.89 to $60.66 at Wednesday’s close. Market watch 2006

          17. bobnstuff February 11, 2016

            You need to learn to read the stock reports, HD is at $113 per share. When Nardelli took over HD was around $68 per share and when he left it was around $21. Lowes was around $23 per share in 2000 and was around $24 per share in 2009. It’s trading at about $61 right now.

          18. mike February 11, 2016

            Again you have your head where the sun doesn’t shine.
            Put in December 2000(and day)when he was hired and 1-3-2007 use monthly to the right, when he was fired. Your price isn’t even close.


          19. Polana February 11, 2016

            Don’t forget Robme had a hand in it (Romney) Bain Capital.

    3. nanc35 February 11, 2016

      Well said. Besides that Carly is the stereotypical woman who slept her way to the top if the bios I’ve read her are correct.

    4. Paul Bass February 11, 2016

      It doesn’t take nerve, that assumes the GOP has a soul, they do not.
      The GOP doesn’t know the meaning of irony or hypocrisy, so it takes no kind of nerve, just a willingness to sell your soul to the devil…

  5. @HawaiianTater February 10, 2016

    Someone ask Ellie if we’re sexist male pigs for not supporting Fiorina.

    1. Carolyn1520 February 11, 2016

      Awe, give Eleanore a break. She had the misfortune of having been married to a real piece of work. He surfaces here occasionally. If you smell a bad odor, it’s likely Louie. I’m pretty sure her wrath has his face. 🙂

      1. @HawaiianTater February 11, 2016

        That explains a lot.

      2. dpaano February 11, 2016

        I’m not all that convinced that Louie was actually married to Eleanore….I think that’s a figment of his limited imagination!

        1. Carolyn1520 February 11, 2016

          I think she confirmed her one time lapse in judgment . But then, who among us hasn’t intellectually slummed it at least once in our youth. I was republican curious once and that was before they devolved. 😀
          Louie and his sock puppets are certainly obsessed with her though. Who bothers to follow an ex on political sites?

  6. FT66 February 11, 2016

    Adios Carla. You will always be remembered by your big lies on video (which never existed) regarding Planned Parenthood.

  7. Whittier5 February 11, 2016

    The upside for our Country yesterday was that nobody, except the Chattering Class were paying any attention.

    How does one who inherits the Talent, Treasury, Patent library, and Brand recognition tank 2 major US Corporations – in short order. Had Western Electric (now Lucent) and HP merely switched to Scrum management within their work groups, instead of to Carly, tens of thousands would still have good paying Jobs, and thousands would still be alive (many did not make it through the stress of dislocation and unemployment), and additional $Millions would be flowing into the US Treasury.

    Carly is a ‘Legend’ in her own mind – because she has Big Lied to herself, too.

  8. Carolyn1520 February 11, 2016

    She’s a light weight. She’ll spend the rest of her life, bitter about not being able to even stand in the same room with a Hillary. I doubt she’ll R.I.P though. She’ll resurface with some more “parting shots” much the way Palin keeps turning up with her nonsense (only she’s accompanied by banjo music)
    She proved she had nothing but lies to offer and smart women knew the difference. She couldn’t even make it to the big stage with the rest of the clowns in her party and her knowing that requires no additional parting shots to her.
    Buh bye.

    1. dpaano February 11, 2016

      She’s California’s answer to Sarah Palin…..both are just a little crazy!!! If she EVER had the chance to debate Hillary, she’d end up slinking off the stage in tears!!!

      1. Jmz Nesky February 12, 2016

        A little crazy? Side walking crabs are ‘a little crazy’.. These two dingbats are beyond the definition of crazy.. (airheads usually are).. However I do know that if Palin had two brains she’d be twice as dumb.

  9. dpaano February 11, 2016

    It’s rather hilarious that Carly talks about “taking back our country from a political class that only serves the big, the powerful, the wealthy, and the well connected,” when it’s her particular political class (the GOP) who fit this MUCH more than the Democrats!!!

  10. Irishgrammy February 11, 2016

    Poor Carly, so jealous of another woman’s accomplishments, when her own are so lacking!!!! Being bitter is not an attractive quality Carly! Am sure as she “travels across the country”, she will really be looking for some state where she can fool enough of the electorate to vote her into a political office somewhere, anywhere……wouldn’t one think if she was, as she promotes, a successful as CEO at Hewlett-Packard she would have been offered all kinds of CEO positions somewhere………that hasn’t happened! You know Carly, those men/women in power talk to each other and clearly came to the conclusion you were not all that!!!!!!!!

  11. jmprint February 11, 2016

    She can beat Hiliary in an ugly pageant, but that’s about all.

  12. Polana February 11, 2016

    What a switch – before her run she praised Hillary and her achievements as a woman.
    What an UGLY flip floper.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.