Carly Fiornia's position on gun ownership

[bczandm]

I don't vote based upon one issue, but she sure has caught my attention on this one. I know she is progun, but Wow. I'll be paying close attention to her in the months to come for sure.

http://louderwithcrowder.com/wondering-about-carly-fiorinas-stance-on-the-2nd-amendment-wonder-no-more/

http://louderwithcrowder.com/wondering-about-carly-fiorinas-stance-on-the-2nd-amendment-wonder-no-more/

[O2HeN2]

She didn't revoke HPs "Gun free workplace" rules when she led the company. When she visited Colorado Springs as company president I stood next to one of her bodyguards...who was packing on company property.

Yet another "Guns for me but not for thee!" type.

O2

[esaabye]

I respect the second and I also respect the property rights of others.

[hurley842002]

She didn't revoke HPs "Gun free workplace" rules when she led the company. When she visited Colorado Springs as company president I stood next to one of her bodyguards...who was packing on company property.

Yet another "Guns for me but not for thee!" type.

O2
She LED the company not OWNED the company, big difference. Kind of like Obama leads (bwwwwaaaaaahahaha, I know right, but I'm talking technically) the country, not owns it (again, bwaaaahaha).

[68Charger]

She LED the company not OWNED the company, big difference. Kind of like Obama leads (bwwwwaaaaaahahaha, I know right, but I'm talking technically) the country, not owns it (again, bwaaaahaha).
^^^ THIS- it's not like the CEO can do whatever they want with a publicly traded company.

They would have a legal team that would "advise" the board that abolition is the lowest liability choice.

[bczandm]

^^^ THIS- it's not like the CEO can do whatever they want with a publicly traded company.

They would have a legal team that would "advise" the board that abolition is the lowest liability choice.

It's good to look at her history at HP, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions either way right now. The fact is that she did not make the final decision on a lot of things at HP and as 68Charger points out she would be limited by the legal team, as well as the board and likely the insurance co. that carried their general liability. In any case I will at least be listening closer to her now.

[Aloha_Shooter]

As an investor (not employee), I hated her. I thought she was all wrong as a pick for CEO and her policies really hurt the company at a time when HP had some serious opportunities. However, I'm impressed with her as a candidate. She has the right philosophies and toughness to fight against the Socialists and their Free Stuff Army.

[Bailey Guns]

I won't have any problem voting for her should she be the candidate. She's on my short list for my primary vote, too. Her stock just went up after watching that video.

[Alpha2]

We had a very good friend (HP employee) here in Fort Fun when she was in charge of HP. He didn't like what she was doing with HP. But, he still had a very good paying job with great benefits. I think he may have missed something there.
HP could have very easily been gone at that time. It's still here in town. I suppose he could have been more impressed with her if she had been in a beauty contest, or popularity contest. Unfortunately, that was not her position.

[Socoar]

It seems as if she was chosen by Fox to be the winner, but she it more of the same. She has worked with the government on record keeping of internet activity. She is not in favor of giving up tool the government uses to watch everyone, just in case.

[def90]

I'd like to think she could be a serious contender but the way she sold off and drove HP into the ground and is a hated by the employee base, tech community and the state of California I don't think she can survive the onslaught that the media would unleash on her.

[TEAMRICO]

How many people died under her charge?<br>Cut it with the the HP business, suddenly we are concerned for a large business? It is a business world. For profit.<br>R's and Cons eat our own daily and do the work FOR the Libs. We are still a looooong way of.<br>Let the Liberals do some infighting.<br>Stop looking at what the other hand is doing and focus on The Dems.<br>This reminds me of 3+ years ago and look what we got.<br><br>

[funkymonkey1111]

Dhimmi

http://www.examiner.com/article/fiorina-sings-the-praises-of-islam-ottoman-empire-greatest-civilization

[davsel]

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/08/08/following-the-money-campaign-moves-the-cocwall-street-roadmap-and-candidate-expectations/

Maybe we should be looking a little closer at Carly. She’s so good, even her competing candidates want to keep her in the race.

Carly Fiorina on Immigration: Pass the DREAM Act. For other undocumented immigrants, a direct path to citizenship is unfair. While running for the U.S. Senate in California in 2010, Fiorina said she supports the DREAM Act (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/carly-fiorina-supports-dream-act-but-says-shes-against-amnesty/), which would give legal status to people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

Carly Fiorina on Climate change: It is real and manmade. But government has limited ability to address it. Speaking in New Hampshire in February (http://www.c-span.org/video/?324350-1/politics-eggs-breakfast-carly-fiorina), Fiorina said there is scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by humans.

Carly Fiorina on Education: Supports Common Core – Set national standards but give local districts maximum control. No Child Left Behind was positive. In a position paper (http://www.carlyforca.com/downloads/CarlyonEducation.pdf)while running for the U.S. Senate in California, Fiorina strongly advocated for metric-based accountability in schools. She praised No Child Left Behind as setting high standards and Race to the Top for using internationally-benchmarked measures.

She, along with Jeb, seem to remind people their state can always “opt out”. Yet they always seem to skip the whole part about national standard being tied to the federal funding allocation. Meaning education funding blackmail – “Opt out, and you don’t get the funds”… but you can always “opt out”.

…”Nice school you got there, it’d be a shame if anything happened to it”….



Wait, Carly (who said Mitt Romney talked her into running) Fiorina, supports Man-Made Global Warming, Common Core -AND- the Dream Act, and Ted Cruz is giving her money? Oh well, they must just be great friends n’ stuff – meh.

[RblDiver]

Hm, good to know. I recently did one of those online "what candidate/party do you mostly identify with" things (it was pretty comprehensive, had lots of questions, lots of views, very balanced imo), and while I think I was at like 94% Cruz, my Fiorina was in the 70's. I'd been wondering, and the above helps me know why.

Edit: Here we go. http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential-quiz
Interesting, my answers have shifted somewhat I think. My top is now Paul at 93%, followed by Cruz and Rubio at 90%. Fiorina's down at 69%.

My differences with her (per their answer comparison chart) (ignoring ones where they say they can't determine her stance):
She supports tax credits/subsidies to wind power, I think energy subsidies should all be eliminated.
She thinks the gov't should continue to subsidize farmers, I think subsidies should be eliminated and let the free market reign.
She thinks corporate income tax rates should be reduced, I think flat tax with no deductions (so I guess that's sort of similar, but the site counted it as different).
She thinks employers should be required to pay equal salaries to men and women, I think the gov't shouldn't mandate wages (on a personal level I indeed agree with equal pay for equal work but it's not the gov'ts place to do so).
She supports TPP, I think there's too much hidden.
She supports the Patriot Act, I think gov't surveillance should be prohibited.
She thinks corporations/unions shouldn't be permitted to fund ads via Super PACs, I think restrictions on campaign spending violates the First.
She thinks the NSA should be able to collect metadata, I say get a warrant first.
She thinks the Social Security age should be increased, I say get rid of it entirely (hey, I'm 30, it'll be defunct by the time I get there, huge Ponzi scheme that it is :P).
She thinks yes spy on our allies, I say no.
She thinks US should formally declare war on ISIS, I say stay out of the Mid East conflicts.
She doesn't support marijuana legalization, I say tax it.