Gyroscopic Investing

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102414247
http://news.yahoo.com/jeb-bush-s-emails ... 55766.html

It concerns the website http://jebbushemails.com/home, where he published the emails sent to him over the years as governor.  They contain names, addresses, Social Security numbers, medical information etc.  Nice job, eGovernor!

Of course, anyone who emails such info maybe deserves what they get, and I don't know what the security of the emails were supposed to be, but...wow.  Also who came up with the idea that his use of email is somehow novel and interesting??

Depending on just how explosive this gets to be, this may be a major dent in Jeb Bush's front runner status.

Wow. Who emails their soc sec #?

dualstow wrote: Wow. Who emails their soc sec #?

People who will later grouse about getting "hacked" and having their identity stolen.

dualstow wrote: Wow. Who emails their soc sec #?

Desparate and/or old people.

Bush fracked up.  No doubts about it.  He's not tech savvy at all if he's offloading the responsibility to Mellennial idiots.

MachineGhost wrote:

dualstow wrote: Wow. Who emails their soc sec #?

Desparate and/or old people.

Bush fracked up.  No doubts about it.  He's not tech savvy at all if he's offloading the responsibility to Mellennial idiots.

I mean, no politician is going to be doing their own web design and data conversion.  He should have specified that the email be cleaned though

Bush canned his tech guy right after he had hired him, because the guy had made some politically incorrect remarks.  On a college radio show, I believe.

The former governor is weak, and an idiot.  He will be crushed in a general election.  It doesn't matter who his opponent is.

Lowe wrote: The former governor is weak, and an idiot.  He will be crushed in a general election.  It doesn't matter who his opponent is.

So who will win the Republican nomination then?  We all know the yes-we-can-chanters will demolish the Republicans to put the first woman into the Presidency.  No man stands a chance!

If they want to win the general election they will run Rubio.  That will make the social justice warriors look like they clowns they are.

No offense intended to any women present, but most people do not want to vote a woman into the presidency.  That includes other women.  As long as you can give them a politically correct reason not to, you're golden.  That's why Clinton lost the primary to Obama.

Lowe wrote: No offense intended to any women present, but most people do not want to vote a woman into the presidency.  That includes other women.  As long as you can give them a politically correct reason not to, you're golden.  That's why Clinton lost the primary to Obama.

You sure that wasn't because it was Mrs. Clinton?  Europe has a lot of women as head of state.  They're way more evolved than we are.  What's the worst that can happen?  Obama is already the worst.

Europe consists of small nations with small armies and navies, or none.  The US president is de facto supreme warlord of earth, commanding the most powerful military force ever created by humans.  I trust you see the difference in how that position is perceived, as compared with the presidency of Italy, for example.

I'm not arguing in favor of Rubio.  I'm just arguing that he is the winning choice.  I agree that being Mrs. Clinton doesn't help Hilary's chances, but that's another problem on top of a greater one, which is her sex.  This might be different if voting happened in public, but it doesn't.

Lowe wrote: If they want to win the general election they will run Rubio.  That will make the social justice warriors look like they clowns they are.

No offense intended to any women present, but most people do not want to vote a woman into the presidency.  That includes other women.  As long as you can give them a politically correct reason not to, you're golden.  That's why Clinton lost the primary to Obama.

No doubt there are those who share that opinion, but in this day and age I expect the majority of fair-minded voters prefer to pick candidates based on other factors that might possibly be more important, e.g. their platform, ideas, demeanor etc.  Strange as it may seem, I really don't think this election is going to be about gender.  We had our little breakthrough back in 2008, and things like electing people other than white males to high office has lost its shock value.

And it is worth noting that there have been women leaders in the modern world for over 50 years.  In case your memory needs jogging, you might recall Margaret Thatcher, a highly successful and conservative UK prime minister, and Angela Merkel, currently Germany's chancellor.  Hardly insignificant backwaters, in case you were about to try to argue that.

WiseOne wrote: And it is worth noting that there have been women leaders in the modern world for over 50 years.  In case your memory needs jogging, you might recall Margaret Thatcher, a highly successful and conservative UK prime minister, and Angela Merkel, currently Germany's chancellor.  Hardly insignificant backwaters, in case you were about to try to argue that.

The world would have been quite different (and worse) without the Iron Lady!!!

@ WiseOne

Sure, relying on the high-minded nature of everyday people is a great way to win elections.  Someone should let Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul know about that.  Not to mention Harry Browne.

Lowe wrote: Sure, relying on the high-minded nature of everyday people is a great way to win elections.  Someone should let Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul know about that.  Not to mention Harry Browne.

I love Barry Goldwater!  I think Barry is to me what Nixon was to Alex Keaton.  I need to get a photo of him and frame it.

[align=center][/align]