Author Ted Cruz  (Read 18357 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Who here is planning to vote for Ted Cruz? Post under this thread.
« Reply #240 on: April 29, 2016, 04:47:09 PM »
Cruz chose Fiorina for one reason. To try and get as many votes in California as possible. He knows that if Trump gets 110-120 out of 172 delegates in California, it will put him over the top. Fiorina has already won a California primary to run last time against Barbara Boxer. Cruz is hoping to get as many of those same voters to vote for him. Any other stated motive is just spin.

Stuart Rothenberg and most other professional election watchers completely dismiss the idea that the selection of Fiorina will help Cruz in California in the slightest.

Re: Who here is planning to vote for Ted Cruz? Post under this thread.
« Reply #241 on: April 29, 2016, 11:20:36 PM »
Stuart Rothenberg and most other professional election watchers completely dismiss the idea that the selection of Fiorina will help Cruz in California in the slightest.

beyond simply not helping, i'd expect the fiorina selection to actively hurt cruz in california.  she's been roundly exposed as a failed CEO who fucked up the lives of tens of thousands of people through numerous layoffs designed to protect her by generating the illusion of a palatable bottom line.  oldest ceo trick in the book.  then, when HP finally told cruella to hit the bricks, she wasted no time in securing her $40 million golden parachute. 

was it appropriate for ol' trout pout to accept such a massive payoff in the wake of her incompetent stewardship and the families it ruined?  decide for yourself, but i don't like this overrated botox repository at all.  the good news is, everything she's touched has gone to hell, which bodes well for the trump campaign. 

can't stump the trump, baby.




this is a few years old, but it gets the point across:

Quote
With Fiorina as chairman and CEO, Hewlett-Packard's value declined significantly and the technology giant endured massive layoffs. Fiorina led a largely unsuccessful merger with Compaq in 2002, going against the wishes of company founder Walter Hewlett. Asked by the board of directors to step down in 2005, Fiorina left with $21 million in cash, plus stock and pension benefits worth another $19 million. According to HP executive compensation rules, departing executives are entitled to no more than 2.99 times their base salary; anything more requires stockholder approval. Fiorina's parachute was more than that, so the stockholders filed a class action suit (a federal judge dismissed it in April 2008). Fiorina is now a Fox Business Network contributor and a top economic advisor to Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1848501_1848500_1848417,00.html

but forget all of this.  it's not about california.  for cruz, it's all about indiana because the media narrative spawned by a trump win in the state will end lyin' ted's campaign that night.



#cruzsexscandal
#nevercruz
#cruzindrag

Re: Who here is planning to vote for Ted Cruz? Post under this thread.
« Reply #242 on: April 29, 2016, 11:35:47 PM »
beyond simply not helping, i'd expect the fiorina selection to actively hurt cruz in california.  she's been roundly exposed as a failed CEO who fucked up the lives of tens of thousands of people through numerous layoffs designed to protect her by generating the illusion of a palatable bottom line.  oldest ceo trick in the book.  then, when HP finally told cruella to hit the bricks, she wasted no time in securing her $40 million golden parachute. 

but forget all of this.  it's not about california.  for cruz, it's all about indiana because the media narrative spawned by a trump win in the state will end lyin' ted's campaign that night.

#cruzsexscandal
#nevercruz
#cruzindrag
Well, HP did refuse to ship her $1M yacht to the East Coast.
#cruzsexscandal
#lyincryinted



Re: Who here is planning to vote for Ted Cruz? Post under this thread.
« Reply #243 on: April 29, 2016, 11:53:45 PM »
Well, HP did refuse to ship her $1M yacht to the East Coast.
#cruzsexscandal
#lyincryinted

haha, really? well then. the company sure did put its foot down.

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #244 on: April 30, 2016, 10:21:47 PM »

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #245 on: April 30, 2016, 11:27:52 PM »


Good 2 no wut b_dubb iz up 2 nao.
Thanks 4 the update.

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #246 on: April 30, 2016, 11:31:49 PM »
Carly Fiorina also orchestrated one of the biggest business debacles in history...the purchase of Compaq computers by HP...they lost billions on that deal...

After they bought it they realized the brand meant nothing...they could have just hired vendors (like Dell) to put the HP logo on any black box....DUMB!

Re: Ted Cruz -- Major Announcement Today
« Reply #247 on: May 01, 2016, 09:21:16 AM »
"Cruz to Make Major Announcement Today" - - -

Ted's going to finally acknowledge that he is "Lucifer in the Flesh"... And ... in keeping with Lucifer's ongoing ever present Rebellion against The Supreme Being, he is going to reveal that he is a trans woman.

Re: Ted Cruz -- Major Announcement Today
« Reply #248 on: May 01, 2016, 09:22:58 AM »
"Cruz to Make Major Announcement Today" - - -

Ted's going to finally acknowledge that he is "Lucifer in the Flesh"... And ... in keeping with Lucifer's ongoing ever present Rebellion against The Supreme Being, he is going to reveal that he is a trans woman.
Ha, that would be classic, and ensure the votes from Hollywood and NYC and likely get him elected. Actually a brilliant strategy!

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #249 on: May 01, 2016, 12:48:56 PM »
I just learned that Cruz made Phil Gramm, instigator of the repeal of Glass-Steagal, as his economic advisor in March. But, noooo, he's not GOP/Wall St Establishment.

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #250 on: May 01, 2016, 01:05:08 PM »
What Next???

Phil Donahue as Ted's Domestic Policy Advisor??

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #251 on: May 01, 2016, 02:15:49 PM »
Ted Cruz’s Support Softens Among the Delegates He Courted
Quote

This gradual acquiescence points up a larger flaw with Mr. Cruz’s strategy of being the last non-Trump candidate standing in a field that began at 17: It was never as much about him as about Republicans grasping for a more palatable alternative to Mr. Trump.


http://nytimes.com/2016/05/02/us/politics/ted-cruz-delegate-count.html

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #252 on: May 01, 2016, 02:18:46 PM »
Ted Cruz’s Support Softens Among the Delegates He Courted

http://nytimes.com/2016/05/02/us/politics/ted-cruz-delegate-count.html

Cruz is more palatable? He's just revolting for different reasons.

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #253 on: May 01, 2016, 02:46:09 PM »
Cruz is more palatable? He's just revolting for different reasons.
He's far worse.  Trump's positions may be argued, but he doesn't consider half of Americans to be enemies and traitors. And Trump doesn't think he's chosen by God.  Cruz has no friends, just zealot followers.  Sound familiar?

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #254 on: May 01, 2016, 05:50:31 PM »
I just learned that Cruz made Phil Gramm, instigator of the repeal of Glass-Steagal, as his economic advisor in March. But, noooo, he's not GOP/Wall St Establishment.

His policy proposals to 'turn the economy around' are designed for the haves and have mores:  cut taxes mainly for the wealthy, more deregulation, deny AGW.

A neat trick: take on the message of working class anger by promising more of much of what made them deservedly angry in the first place. 

However, it's quite apparent that most working class voters aren't falling for his nonsense.

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #255 on: May 01, 2016, 06:54:26 PM »
His policy proposals to 'turn the economy around' are designed for the haves and have mores:  cut taxes mainly for the wealthy, more deregulation, deny AGW.

A neat trick: take on the message of working class anger by promising more of much of what made them deservedly angry in the first place. 

However, it's quite apparent that most working class voters aren't falling for his nonsense.
He's been saying that under his policies, new college grads would be getting multiple job offers. What a lyin' sack. His economics are reflected in his wife, a die hard globalist who's worked for Condaleeza Rice, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, now "on leave" from GS and a member of the CFR. 

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #256 on: May 01, 2016, 07:06:44 PM »
He's been saying that under his policies, new college grads would be getting multiple job offers. What a lyin' sack. His economics are reflected in his wife, a die hard globalist who's worked for Condaleeza Rice, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, now "on leave" from GS and a member of the CFR.

His policies are a return to George W Bush's policies.  Don't recall all that many college graduates getting multiple job offers back then, except maybe in some high tech fields, and that had nothing to do with W's policies.

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #257 on: May 01, 2016, 07:19:59 PM »
His policies are a return to George W Bush's policies.  Don't recall all that many college graduates getting multiple job offers back then, except maybe in some high tech fields, and that had nothing to do with W's policies.
"College graduates" is a very murky phrase that is often bandied by politicians about but includes degrees in worthless subjects ("gender studies," "black studies,", etc) or very limiting job prospect subjects, especially in a "dumbed down" world, "Classics," "Ancient Languages," "Art," etc;) that, often, limit your career in the education system itself (unless you can move into something else or a very unique and good at them.) But various types of engineering, law, business, medicine, math, etc majors and post-grad degrees seem to be doing ok, you might need to take a position that isn't your first choice- but even if you can't find a position in your area of expertise some majors or degrees (even philosophy or law) can often make you a successful salesman (or politician  ;))

Also, from what school did they graduate? A prestigious one? A school in which you can make 'connections' and network? Or some local community college? Debt is an issue that effects everyone and even more so for those getting decent/legit degrees (because they usually have to attend school and post-grad longer and the better schools cost more than some local JC for a "gender" class.

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #258 on: May 01, 2016, 07:37:44 PM »
"College graduates" is a very murky phrase that is often bandied by politicians about but includes degrees in worthless subjects ("gender studies," "black studies,", etc) or very limiting job prospect subjects, especially in a "dumbed down" world, "Classics," "Ancient Languages," "Art," etc;) that, often, limit your career in the education system itself (unless you can move into something else or a very unique and good at them.) But various types of engineering, law, business, medicine, math, etc majors and post-grad degrees seem to be doing ok, you might need to take a position that isn't your first choice- but even if you can't find a position in your area of expertise some majors or degrees (even philosophy or law) can often make you a successful salesman (or politician  ;))

Also, from what school did they graduate? A prestigious one? A school in which you can make 'connections' and network? Or some local community college? Debt is an issue that effects everyone and even more so for those getting decent/legit degrees (because they usually have to attend school and post-grad longer and the better schools cost more than some local JC for a "gender" class.

I disagree. A number of Fortune 500 CEOs have degrees in 'unique areas.'  http://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/102015/americas-top-ceos-and-their-college-degrees.asp

It's not mentioned there but I believe a fair number of CEOs have philosophy degrees.  I doubt this is correct but: http://gerrycramer.com/observations/are-you-on-track-to-becoming-a-fortune-500-ceo/ (40% of CEOs have philosophy degrees)


http://fortune.com/2014/06/02/ceo-college-majors/   
Seven CEOs with surprising college majors

Leaving aside CEOs, all of those degrees you mentioned as bad choices depend on the creativity of the person receiving them.  You mentioned classics and ancient languages, but I can think of a fair number of uses of them that aren't all that 'unique.'

Off the top of my head: tour guide or tour owner/operator, historical author or editor, consultant or writer for historical television show or movie (which are pretty big these days), interpreter of historical documents (also relatively big these days.) I'm sure other people here can come up with many more.

Also, some ancient languages are the building blocks of many current languages used these days.  So, majoring in a related ancient language is a stepping stone to learning many other languages.  Obvious job opportunities there.

Of course there aren't going to be as many jobs that use the knowledge learnt in classics and ancient languages as in law, but then it's an obvious case of supply and demand. If there are a lot of people with law degrees and few people with degrees in the classics or ancient languages, then the person with the classics or ancient language degree might well get a lot more job offers.

Finally, there is a concept in economics known as 'signalling theory' which is a subset of the 'information problem' (which I believe I've written about on here before) which postulates that the degree a person receives makes no difference at all.  The only real value of the degree is that it signals to a potential employer that the person with the degree must be at least reasonably intelligent and that they had enough discipline to remain in university for the time it took to get the degree.  Therefore, they are a suitable employee.

From wiki: In contract theory, signaling (or signalling: see American and British English differences) is the idea that one party (termed the agent) credibly conveys some information about itself to another party (the principal). For example, in Michael Spence's job-market signalling model, (potential) employees send a signal about their ability level to the employer by acquiring education credentials. The informational value of the credential comes from the fact that the employer believes the credential is positively correlated with having greater ability and difficult for low ability employees to obtain. Thus the credential enables the employer to reliably distinguish low ability workers from high ability workers.

No mention that there is a need to have the degree in the specific field you are looking for a job in.

I don't believe this theory applies to all cases by any means, but I suspect there is some deal of truth behind it.

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #259 on: May 01, 2016, 07:52:32 PM »
I disagree. A number of Fortune 500 CEOs have degrees in 'unique areas.'  http://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/102015/americas-top-ceos-and-their-college-degrees.asp

It's not mentioned there but I believe a fair number of CEOs have philosophy degrees.  I doubt this is correct but: http://gerrycramer.com/observations/are-you-on-track-to-becoming-a-fortune-500-ceo/ (40% of CEOs have philosophy degrees)


http://fortune.com/2014/06/02/ceo-college-majors/   
Seven CEOs with surprising college majors

Leaving aside CEOs, all of those degrees you mentioned as bad choices depend on the creativity of the person receiving them.  You mentioned classics and ancient languages, but I can think of a fair number of uses of them that aren't all that 'unique.'

Off the top of my head: tour guide or tour owner/operator, historical author or editor, consultant or writer for historical television show or movie (which are pretty big these days), interpreter of historical documents (also relatively big these days.) I'm sure other people here can come up with many more.

Also, some ancient languages are the building blocks of many current languages used these days.  So, majoring in a related ancient language is a stepping stone to learning many other languages.  Obvious job opportunities there.

Of course there aren't going to be as many jobs that use the knowledge learnt in classics and ancient languages as in law, but then it's an obvious case of supply and demand. If there are a lot of people with law degrees and few people with degrees in the classics or ancient languages, then the person with the classics or ancient language degree might well get a lot more job offers.
Believe me I'm all for a classic, liberal arts education (it is the leftists who aren't because too much "dead white males" involved.) To me education is not about preparation for a job but even worthwhile for its own sake. But there are practical concerns: especially if we, or as a society, are paying for it or subsidizing it.

You do understand that most graduates, even in business, will not become CEO of Fortune 500 companies, right? It is like "I will play basketball or soccer, because look Jordan or Messi makes millions." Not that everyone shouldn't shoot for it but there also is some reality that, at least sometimes, needs to come into play, particularly if the education is being paid for and subsidized. But, sure, there are always outliers, and, yes, often (depending on field) a "degree" often doesn't even matter, especially after the initial hire, but education and ability to think, adapt, argue, convince, be disciplined, relate, communicate, etc does.

And, as I mentioned, philosophy is very good because it teaches you to think and how to argue. But by numbers: how many ancient Sanskrit scholars can society carry? Do reckon the market for tour guides in even Greece these days is a booming one in which you can use your "ancient Greek" language major enough to pay off your loan? Maybe, you'd be better off with that degree in Sumerian, because there are so many tours heading over to Danesh areas for tours! Versus, say, an engineer or doctor of some specialization? Is that degree in "gender studies" or "black studies," especially in an environment that says marks don't matter and each student is entitled to "safe spaces" and "not being offended" prepare you for the modern business world? And in times of Obama, or Bush, you can always "settle" for something with a higher degree than without. (worst case scenarios (like what happened in Russia or when highly educated immigrants move to Europe/USA etc and aren't credentialed here: you think I'd rather hire some guy who was able to get a degree in math or law or medicine versus a high-school drop-out or "black studies" degree from some JC, even if the job had nothing to do with math/law/medicine/blacks- if nothing else I know he had some discipline?)

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #260 on: May 01, 2016, 08:06:31 PM »
Believe me I'm all for a classic, liberal arts education (it is the leftists who aren't because too much "dead white males" involved.) To me education is not about preparation for a job but even worthwhile for its own sake. But there are practical concerns: especially if we, or as a society, are paying for it or subsidizing it.

Trying to predict the jobs of the future is as much a mug's game as trying to predict the stock market, and for the same reasons. So, if subsidizing education is all about the job market for more than just the immediate term I think telling people what areas they have to take is a bit pointless.

Also, I believe it's the Soviet Union that told people what education they had to take. That was one of the things that didn't work out all that well for them.

Finally, to the degree that advanced education students are concerned about their immediate job prospects after leaving college, the market will help them out by setting higher wages for jobs in demand, all else being equal. So, students don't need government telling them what to take or limiting their education choices.

I realize you're somewhat more of a libertarian than a conservative, but I thought both believed that the individual is better at making choices for themselves than the government is.

Here are the unemployment rates for those with some colllege up to those with doctorates (though not specifically listed for them): http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm

Unemployed former college students doesn't appear to be a big problem.

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #261 on: May 01, 2016, 08:15:36 PM »
You do understand that most graduates, even in business, will not become CEO of Fortune 500 companies, right?

I would assume the number of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies at any given time is 500. (Excluding CEOs of subsidiary companies.)

It was just one point to show that law, business or engineering degrees aren't necessary.  If even a number of Fortune 500 CEOs have degrees in Ancient History (and no other degree) then surely those degrees aren't vital for all that many people beyond, of course, those who want to become lawyers or engineers.

Of course, both require constant education upgrading and with legal software constantly improving the number of lawyers employed may drop significantly in the not too distant future. 


Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #262 on: May 01, 2016, 08:25:07 PM »

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #263 on: May 01, 2016, 08:25:59 PM »
Trying to predict the jobs of the future is as much a mug's game as trying to predict the stock market, and for the same reasons. So, if subsidizing education is all about the job market for more than just the immediate term I think telling people what areas they have to take is a bit pointless.

Also, I believe it's the Soviet Union that told people what education they had to take. That was one of the things that didn't work out all that well for them.

Finally, to the degree that advanced education students are concerned about their immediate job prospects after leaving college, the market will help them out by setting higher wages for jobs in demand, all else being equal. So, students don't need government telling them what to take or limiting their education choices.

I realize you're somewhat more of a libertarian than a conservative, but I thought both believed that the individual is better at making choices for themselves than the government is.

Here are the unemployment rates for those with some colllege up to those with doctorates (though not specifically listed for them): http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm

Unemployed former college students doesn't appear to be a big problem.
There are always disruptive technologies and, sure, you never know what will happen, but there is also common-sense. A decent education will always be useful, even if you are a ditch-digger, which is a worthwhile endeavor also. Likely more than "black" or "gender" studies. I am against the socialist system of free education because it does, by necessity, mean that students are "steered" into certain occupations or jobs. Even on the 'high end.' (This is done, to an extent, even in our current system but if you look at the more 'free' ones even more so.) You think anyone who wishes in France can attend École nationale supérieure de techniques avancées? Even in medicine, like my experience in The Netherlands, there is a pool system to get into med school (once you qualify and have the marks, based on the future perceived need for various specialties. You want to be a dermatologist, better wait in line because the socialized medical systems says we project we will need X number of dermatologists in Brabant and X number in Amsterdam, etc.) In many countries you take tests early on in your career that, if you do poorly, you are steered into certain schools. When young, around 12 or so. The State is paying so they want to ensure qualifications and that the people will, eventually, fill a necessary space in whatever field. In some ways this is good. (If it works you can have, ideally, people qualified for positions needed. And it does benefit large corporations where they, at least think, know how many of X types of workers they need. Why you will see often large employers telling school districts, partnering with schools/universities, etc.) But, as you mention, how many people 'find themselves' later in life, or get a degree in something but end up being successful in something else? How many future great "CEOs" or leaders or whatever are nipped in the bud? And even when you don't "use" your specific degree a well-rounded, educated person is more likely to succeed at whatever job (obviously highly technical occupations do entail more specialization.) But, likewise, if we are paying for it how many "black studies" grads do we need? And, at a certain point, how many positions for "gender studies" grads can be absorbed in "gender studies" departments in schools? But grade-inflation, affirmative action, "dumbed down" courses, "social promotion," and bizarre majors make the overall "worth" of the degree, or even quality of the education, less.

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #264 on: May 01, 2016, 08:26:44 PM »

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #265 on: May 01, 2016, 08:37:50 PM »
You think anyone who wishes in France can attend École nationale supérieure de techniques avancées? Even in medicine, like my experience in The Netherlands, there is a pool system to get into med school (once you qualify and have the marks, based on the future perceived need for various specialties. You want to be a dermatologist, better wait in line because the socialized medical systems says we project we will need X number of dermatologists in Brabant and X number in Amsterdam, etc.)

I'm aware of that.  Universities are going to set the number of students in any discipline based on some combination of  government funding based on their expectations of immediate and future job needs, student demand and availability of educators. 

With some exceptions though I don't think governments need to set these requirements and based on the experience here in B.C when they cut the number of medical doctor placements a number of years ago based on the now largely discredited theory that the higher the number of medical doctors the higher the amount of health care spending,  and ended up having to recruit several thousand foreign medical doctors, that this might well fail as much as it succeeds.

I think governments should just make all information widely available to high school students and then with a combination of trusting the students to make decisions for themselves and having job counselors guide them with their decisions, leave the decisions to the students.  Of course, given what I wrote about availability of educators there would likely always be short term under supply and over supply in some areas.

Similarly, in British Columbia we have a surplus of recent graduates with education degrees because they had either been told or had misinformed themselves that there was going to be a large upsurge in demand here for school teachers.  One way or another this was likely an example of the information problem or a problem of predicting future job needs than that there was a sudden upsurge of those with undergraduate degrees becoming fascinated with education irrespective of market demand.

I don't know how many students take black studies or even what is taught in black studies to offer any opinion on it.

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #266 on: May 01, 2016, 08:43:44 PM »

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #267 on: May 01, 2016, 08:47:24 PM »


haha, that's so unsettling to watch.  i stared at it for 90 seconds.  jesus.

Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #268 on: May 01, 2016, 08:49:31 PM »
an oldie, but a goodie:


Re: Ted Cruz
« Reply #269 on: May 01, 2016, 08:50:18 PM »