Slashdot Mirror


Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina Considering US Presidential Run

McGruber writes: Fired HP CEO and failed Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina is "actively exploring a 2016 presidential run." Fiorina has been "talking privately with potential donors, recruiting campaign staffers, courting grass-roots activists in early caucus and primary states, and planning trips to Iowa and New Hampshire starting next week."

286 of 433 comments (clear)

  1. Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The republican candidate list now includes (at least)

    Mitt Romney

    Jeb Bush

    Scott Walker

    Chris Christie

    Sarah Palin

    Bobby Jindal

    And now Carly Fiorina wants in, too? That will be quite a crowd.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Funny

      none of those will be taken seriously. Its all about Rand Paul in 2016

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its all about Rand Paul in 2016

      Rand Paul would break the GOP; possibly the greatest gift the the democrats could ever receive. He is running for the nomination for sure, but he will be one of the first pushed out.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Might be an interesting year.

      On the other side we have (listed alphabetically)

      Joe Biden
      Hillary Clinton
      Howard Dean
      Luis Gutiérrez
      Joe Manchin
      Martin O'Malley
      Ed Rendell
      Bernie Sanders
      Brian Schweitzer
      Jim Webb

      And don't forget Vermin Supreme

      I'm pretty sure any of the above could beat Carly

    4. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the GOP needs to be broken because they are a sick joke right now.

      The democrats are only slightly worse than the GOP as a whole these days

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      So two people that couldn't even win a senate seat during favorable election conditions, a retread candidate, a guy with a toxic last name, a complete idiot who is known for being a punch line to everyone except the extreme right wing, a governor who barely dodges scandals erupting from typical New Jersey politics, and Bobby Jindal.

      Anyone else want in, because I'm not seeing a lot to get fired up about here...

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    6. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      none of those will be taken seriously. Its all about Rand Paul in 2016

      And one peccadillo coming to light about Rand (or any of them for that matter) will sink his ship in an instant.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    7. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      You can bet that someone from Ohio will be in - either Gov. John Kasich who just soundly won reelection, or Senator Rob Portman. Both of which would be better than most of the other names being bandied about, and could deliver the Midwest.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    8. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So two people that couldn't even win a senate seat during favorable election conditions, a retread candidate, a guy with a toxic last name, a complete idiot who is known for being a punch line to everyone except the extreme right wing, a governor who barely dodges scandals erupting from typical New Jersey politics, and Bobby Jindal.

      Anyone else want in, because I'm not seeing a lot to get fired up about here...

      Yeah, all that vs. Hillary Clinton. We so desperately need a third party or Ross Perot type candidate.

    9. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by damn_registrars · · Score: 2
      While I agree with the statement of

      I'm pretty sure any of the above could beat Carly

      It is worth pointing out that the list you just gave is pretty much completely speculative, as none of the names on that list have actually made concrete motions towards running. On the other hand every GOP'er on the list I provided has done something that is clearly designed to build up their presidential campaign.

      That of course doesn't mean that none of the people on your list will run, just that none of them are running at this time.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    10. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Change that to "a woman retread candidate with a toxic last name and a complete idiot who is known for being a punch line to everyone except the extreme left wing, and a couple of unpopular/unemployed governors" and you described the Democrats.

    11. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      All of them on both lists have "expressed interest", not much else going on this early besides putting out feelers to potential donors.

    12. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Seven drawves are only a crowd if they're all trying to bang you at the same time.

    13. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      All of them on both lists have "expressed interest"

      I disagree. There are several on your list of democrats who have yet to express any interest. This of course does not mean that they won't run but they have not done anything to express interest in pursuing the nomination so far.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    14. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Scottingham · · Score: 3, Insightful

      haha, you think Clinton is extreme left wing? You need to recalibrate, she's moderate right wing if anything!

    15. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >The democrats are only slightly worse than the GOP as a whole these days

      What? The Democrats are pretty bad, but much better than the degenerate remains of the Republican party, which is nothing but wingnuts now that they've driven all the smart people out of the party with their superstition, reality-denial, and bigotry.

    16. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 4, Informative

      The GOP has been broken for decades now. Their last good President was Eisenhower. They just keep drifting into more extreme white christianist views, and have doubled-down on religion at a time when smart people understand that the supernatural is imaginary.

    17. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      I disagree. There are several on your list of democrats who have yet to express any interest. This of course does not mean that they won't run but they have not done anything to express interest in pursuing the nomination so far.

      They probably know they have no chance, if the Republicans can offer an electable candidate this time.

      Oh, hang on... yeah, I'm surprised they haven't thrown their hat in the ring already.

    18. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Which is why I haven't donated to the GOP since after GWB 2nd term. The Republican Party is dead to me. Fuck both parties.

      For all you Republicans out there, there will NEVER be another Ronald Reagan. Forget about it. Just move on and go back to core basics in freedom and liberty. The Libertarian platform is your best hope, just drop the identity politics as authoritative tyranny needs to be stopped. It's urgent!. Unfortunately it's tainted by a bunch of anarchist nut balls, but I believe it's worth cleaning up and reorganizing to make it a viable serious party.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    19. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You appear to have internalized far-right extremism. The extreme left wing is not fond of center-right Democrats like Clinton, and her name is only toxic to wingnuts because hate-radio, fake news, and the wingnut-o-sphere hate her. I'm opposed to political dynasties, but since I do have some critical thinking skills, I'm going to have to call bullshit on your far-right-wing worldview.

    20. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Democrats are becoming cohesive, while the Republican party is simply flailing around. The Republicans are too scared to give up the baptist vote to actually tell them to fuck off and police their own morality themselves, so we'll still be seeing the GOP as the party of hypocrisy and big government in your bedroom for the foreseeable future.

      I don't agree with what the Democratic party is pushing, but you have to admit, the party of "progressiveness" has finally decided on a direction to "progress", rather than everyone wanting to change random shit for the sake of change and calling it progressive.

    21. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The irony is that, were a candidate to arise that held Ronald Reagan's values, he (or she) would be kicked out of the GOP for not being conservative enough.

      My fondest hope is that the GOP splits in two. One half can be made up of the actual conservatives and the other half can be made up of the nut jobs. This way, the crazy-GOP can fade away to the side-lines and the serious-GOP can actually get stuff done without needing to worry about appeasing the crazy elements of their party.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    22. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      I pulled that list from Wikipedia, for what it's worth.

    23. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Deadstick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For all you Republicans out there, there will NEVER be another Ronald Reagan.

      If there were, they'd denounce him as a liberal for not conforming to their redefined image of him.

      Substitute Jesus for Reagan -- same deal.

    24. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by OrugTor · · Score: 2

      Maybe so, but they more closely represent the American voter.

    25. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Toxic to whom? Bill Clinton left office in 2000 with astonishingly good approval ratings, despite Gingrich's and Co's endless attempts to destroy him.

      Now Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton, but I don't think the Clinton name in general is nearly as toxic as, say, the Bush name (although, in Jeb's defense, I don't think he's the mumbling bumbling alcohol-fried moron his brother is).

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    26. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by LiquidAvatar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, the state of American politics. It's like being a starving man who is only presented with moldy leftovers. If you choose well, maybe you'll only be disgusted by your choice... choose poorly and you're left with an uncontrollable shit.

      --
      It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
      -Voltaire
    27. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by DavidHumus · · Score: 1

      Carly will be the seventh dwarf.

    28. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      In fact it did, Tea Party sits between Libertarian and Republican. But it won't officially split into two seperate parties as that would "split the vote". In fact, that's how the Republicans lost a few elections because votes splintered off to Libertarian or Independent. That gave the Democrats the majority vote. So when push comes to shove, the Tea Party voters will still vote Republican. Blame the process.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    29. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by dcw3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd be happy if we could get a GOP w/o the religion, that along with getting rid of the Citizen's United decision, and the money out of the political mess that is both parties.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    30. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      The only reasons for anyone but Hillary being on this list are in the unlikely event that she decides not to run, or to hope for a spot as her VP.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    31. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ever noticed that most strident, pro-Republican commentators are almost always ACs? I've noticed this in other political comment boards that Republcian commentators are almost always anonymous, as if they're ashamed to associate their real name with the Republican party.

    32. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You misspelled his name. It's Ronald Wilson Reagan (666).

    33. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      i think we are sick of dynasties in this country. meaning no more bush, no more clinton. its time for a REAL change, not the BS change we were promised in 08

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    34. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not even the theocratic bullshit that's the major problem. It's their insane dogma of coddling the rich and skullfucking anybody who works for a living. How can I support a party that uses big government to funnel my tax money into the pockets of dunces and takers in corporate boardrooms that hate 99% of America? I can't and nobody else who's thinking should either. Would anybody who's really concerned about communism crawl into bed with China? Would anybody who's really serious about small government howl for globe-spanning wars at every opportunity? Would anybody who's really grasped Jesus' teaching keep trying to cheat, enslave, disenfranchise, and murder the less fortunate? No, but Republican oligarchs and their useful idiots sure as hell do.

    35. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      I once did a bible study with a middle-aged man while in the college ministry. He believed in angels. His living room had thousands of angel statues of all shapes and sizes. With a half-dozen candles lit, his living room looked like a medieval monastery shrine. Forget about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. They're no match for angels.

      A few years later, I would have a roommate who believes that angels were from outer space. That's a UFO niche unto itself.

    36. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You must have missed the last election. Democrats were shellacked.

    37. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by plopez · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You must have missed the last election. Low turnout, which always favors Republicans, but every minimum wage increase passed, pot legaization passed, person hood amendments failed etc. In other words the liberal agenda made lots of progress. Here's a nice analysis by a GOPer:

      http://blog.chron.com/goplifer...

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    38. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by plopez · · Score: 1

      There seems to be a growing independent candidate movement. You should look into it.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    39. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 2

      You have no idea what you are talking about. When RR took office, the prime interest rate was over 20%, mortgage rates were about 18%, inflation was running at 13%, there were long lines to buy gasoline and the cost of heating skyrocketed. By the time he left office in 1989, 18 million new jobs had been created, inflation was cut to 4%, interest rates were cut in half, the Federal Registry of regulations had half the number of pages, and the Iron Curtain had come down. Reagan freed millions people from tyranny. He was a hero.

    40. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Honestly I fucking hate the term "progressive" in the political sense. Anything you do that works towards changing anything is considered progress, even if its changing it for the worse. Prohibitionists referred to themselves as "progressives" for example. As did the Nazis on a few occasions.

      At the end of the day, a "progressive" is just a self-righteous fucktard label that somebody applies to themselves when they're convinced that their opinions are the only correct ones.

    41. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      A Cruz/Palin ticket would make for an entertaining circus.

    42. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by paiute · · Score: 2

      Too bad Cruz is not eligible.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    43. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Gah, I can't believe you mentioned the words dream ticket and Palin in the same sentence.

    44. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by firewrought · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Forget about it. Just move on and go back to core basics in freedom and liberty. The Libertarian platform is your best hope, just drop the identity politics as authoritative tyranny needs to be stopped.

      Sigh... if only. Unfortunately, the libertarian brand of freedom is in effect more about shifting federal power to wealthy corporations, religious institutions, and state-level control than it is about empowering individuals to have control over their own lives. There's no emphasis on education, healthcare reform, consumer protection, or intellectual property reform; there's very inconsistent support for the broad field of civil rights (including digital rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, worker's rights, immigration policy, police accountability, civil asset forfeiture reform, etc.).

      They've got some good points: supporting gun rights, legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana, limiting federal power, challenging the DOD budget, and opposing pointless wars in the middle east. I give them points for wanting to confront reality on social security/medicare, even if their solution is to tear down most of the safety nets. When it comes to taxes or the environment, they seem to live in some far off fantasyland that wants to entrust our air/water/infrastructure/dignity to profit-focused institutions.

      Unfortunately it's tainted by a bunch of anarchist nut balls, but I believe it's worth cleaning up and reorganizing to make it a viable serious party.

      It's tainted even more by plutocrat backers that want power over others (without the pesky need to get elected) and zero taxes. But yeah, there is a core to their message that might be worth redeeming. It seems to me like they should seek out moderate democrats and try to establish a new liberalism. Maybe some progressives could acknowledge that life is just going to have some unhappy stories sometimes, and you don't need to pass a law or start a new government program everytime something on the news make you sad. Ultimately, we need both individual liberty and social responsibility.

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    45. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      About 5% of the US population identifies as atheist. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in any of our legal founding documents. It was pulled from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a church assuring them freedom of religion since there would be no official state religion. The great majority of the initial wave of immigration to the America was from European countries that required people to join the state religion, and they immigrated seeking religious freedom.

    46. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How is a watered down version of the Republican, private run healthcare plan from the 90's communist?
      I mean, I know that by this points words have no meaning in the USA English Political dialect, but that's ridiculously silly.

      Now if they had pushed for single payer, state run healthcare, like ANY sensible country should have, you could have an argument. But still, no. It would not involve workers owning the means of production.

      Still hilarious though.

    47. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 2

      Pretty much everyone Hillary campaigned for lost.

    48. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 2

      BJ Clinton was impeached, lost his law license, sold nuclear secrets to China for campaign contributions, and should be a registered sex offender. It was hilarious to see him give the keynote address at the DNC "war on women" event. The irony was completely lost on democrats.

    49. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      in other words, everything rand is for. shocking!

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    50. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by cptdondo · · Score: 2

      And by today's standards he would be a RINO, a carpetbagger, and probably a few other choice words. Let's not forget he raised taxes, let illegals stay, and a whole bunch of other things that are anathema to the current rightwing nutjob movement.

    51. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      simple, 10th amendment. how hard is that for people to understand? the federal government does NOT have the authority per the 10th.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    52. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      none of those will be taken seriously. Its all about Rand Paul in 2016

      No. It's Sarah Palin 2015 - on the road to 1400 Pennsylvania Ave ... :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    53. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1, Funny

      Before the media decided she should be destroyed, she had the highest approval rating of any governor. She is extremely bright. If the media focused on Obama's many, many blunders, you would think he was a complete retard. What about conservative women and minorities so infuriates the left?

    54. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by dcw3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your measure of left and right does not match up with American political norms. Now if your basing it on outside U.S., that's fine, but it doesn't play here.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    55. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by satch89450 · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, the tendency of The Powers That Be to use heavy-handed government intrusion against those who would speak against their positions is a real problem. I'm not posting this anonymously because I don't expect retaliation to these thoughts; if I did think that someone "official" would take note, I would click that box. And before anyone gets their partisan hackles up, the abuse of government power is not the actions of one political party. Or the actions at one particular level of government -- intimidation occurs in some States as well as at the Federal level.

    56. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      You forgot the deep blue state of OR utterly rejecting drivers licenses for illegal aliens. The best by far: the phrase "former senate majority leader Reed"

    57. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by taiwanjohn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Overturning Citizens United will require a constitutional amendment. Have you done your part to move that process forward yet? Here are a couple of things you can do:

      1. Visit MoveToAmend.org and sign the petition.

      2. Visit Wolf-PAC.com and volunteer.

      3. Contact all of your elected representatives at every level of government and make sure they know where you stand on the issue of corporate personhood, and why.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    58. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by painandgreed · · Score: 2

      The GOP has been broken for decades now. Their last good President was Eisenhower. They just keep drifting into more extreme white christianist views, and have doubled-down on religion at a time when smart people understand that the supernatural is imaginary.

      ITT: Democrats sore about last election claim Republicans are done, starting....now.

      How about a Republican sore about the last election and claiming the Republicans are done?

    59. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      no, we said she's center-right.

    60. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Don't blame the media for Palin self-destructing under the national limelight. The blame belongs with the McCain campaign for plucking her out of obscurity without vetting her, and the Republcian Party for not allowing McCain to pick Sen. Joseph Lieberman as his vice presidential candidate.

    61. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      I would totally go for a Penelope Cruz/Sarah Palin ticket.

    62. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      The Republican nut jobs are a very small portion. Of Republican politicians, a narrow majority is somewhere in the big government, semiprogessive, power hungry RINO morass. Most of the remainder is conservative or libertarian. Among the Republican non-politicians, the majority is conservative-libertarian; those more leftist tend to leave the party.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    63. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Let's not forget that Ronald Reagan was the Tea Partier of his day. The Republican Establishment didn't want him back then. After he won the nomination and won the election, the Republican Establishment became Reganites.

    64. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      Reagan eventually realized his support for amnesty was a mistake, a mistake based in part on fraudulent information given to him about the quantity of illegal aliens already in the country.

      The claims for Reagan being senile while in office are a hoax manufactured by his enemies.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    65. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by almitydave · · Score: 1

      Gah, I can't believe you mentioned the words dream ticket and Palin in the same sentence.

      Well, he didn't specify what type of dream. There are lots of possibilities.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    66. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1, Insightful

      H. Clinton's history is a mixed variety of leftisms, from the fascism of her commodity market fraud to the outright communism of "Hillarycare". She is a strident, race-baiting proto-dictator; like Obama, dodging responsibility for her actions at every step. There is good reason to believe she is brain damaged. She is completely unfit for public office at any level.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    67. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Toxic [among] whom?

      Among conservatives who where not going to vote for a Democrat anyway. They hate her so much, they consider it a win if she gets nominated, because surely everyone else hates her as much as they do. Therefore, if she is nominated, it will be an easy victory. See also, liberals and GWB's 2nd term.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    68. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      I'm glad the opposition thinks of the GOP as a sick joke after it has overtaken Congress.

      Please continue to write them off.

    69. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      She did make an excellent porn star.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    70. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You must have missed the Katie Couric interview that herald Sarah Palin's self-destruction. She wasn't ready for the national stage -- and it showed.

    71. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I believe in angels. I've never seen one though. However, multiple people have claimed to have seen my wife's guardian angels (plural). One of these people said hers were the biggest guardian angels they'd seen. Now, it's quite possible (likely even) that all these people were crazy. However, given her tendency to do things like stand on rolling office chairs to reach high places combined with the fact that she's still alive, there's a certain credibility to these claims.

    72. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by micahraleigh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Does anyone else see the template here?

      GOP nominee [insert name here] is the stupidest person who has ever represented the party.

      Even Maureen Dowd's Republican brother won't vote for him.

      9 out of 10 psychologists think [insert name here] has mental health issues -just by looking at his grammar!

      And these same psychologists made this determination before they even finished their breakfasts!

      Consequential publications (such as Rolling Stone magazine) have taken the unprecedented step of endorsing the Democrat!

      Nothing new under the sun, folks ...

    73. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Tim+the+Gecko · · Score: 1

      Diffidence is "modesty or shyness resulting from a lack of self-confidence". I think you mean "deference".

    74. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      God I wish I had mod points for this. Everyone seems to forget about the 10th, and it's just as important as the first.

      Plus, what politician would want to sign their name to laying off millions of people in the health insurance sector?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    75. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You should read some history. Reagan was a criminal and a murderous butcher who supported death squads and genocide.

      Or, if that is the kind of person you idolize, well, then.

    76. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it went away, it may and probably has shifted to where it is. That is the current norm, and not what you or the GP claimed. And your little tax rant is off-topic as well.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    77. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      You left out not a Muslim who happens to have Hussein as a middle name.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    78. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 1
      I can fix the party system easy. You no longer pick your own party. Each political party puts forth their stances on several of their main issues, then all parties put down their stances on all the issues brought up by every party. Next, you look over voting records and sort people in to the parties that match. We would see the GOP and Dems lose a lot of people pretty quickly.

      If you are new and don't have a voting record, then you list your own stance on various issues. As you hold office, your actions will be reviewed and you will be moved into the party that fits if need be.

      By letting people say that they support this or that party during campaigns, then not caring when they do the exact opposite, we aren't helping the system.

      This would probably also fix the issues with funding, since there wouldn't be a giant party any more, there would be dozens of smaller parties, all trying to regain their power. And if people started to vote against the party, then they change parties.

      --
      XDInd
    79. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      For all you Republicans out there, there will NEVER be another Ronald Reagan

      God I hope so.

    80. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      Maybe you could cite a single combative interview with Obama? The media treated him with kid gloves from day one.

    81. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Sique · · Score: 1

      If ever a fault it's still that of the GOP if they can't get their stuff together that just a few switching democrats can flip their primaries.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    82. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Sique · · Score: 1

      The modern image of the angels is a missunderstanding of the greek word angelos, which actually means messenger. An angel surely is not a guardian. While sometimes the Bible mentiones God sending some of his guardians (the seraphim) to earth as messengers, they went there to deliver a message, not to protect someone or fight on your side or whatever. So whoever believes in angels as guardians, his belief is definitely not based on the Bible.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    83. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You probably missed the Bill O'Reilly interview as well.

    84. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wonder what Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; means then. It is probably about Congress giving priviledges to some religions while reigning into the exercise of others and forcing religion down everyone's throat including that of atheists.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    85. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Hillgiant · · Score: 2

      I'd be happy if we could get a pony.

      --
      -
    86. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Shoten · · Score: 1

      The republican candidate list now includes (at least)

      Mitt Romney

      Jeb Bush

      Scott Walker

      Chris Christie

      Sarah Palin

      Bobby Jindal

      And now Carly Fiorina wants in, too? That will be quite a crowd.

      Well, I gotta say...the next two years are going to be an absolutely wonderful time for comedians!

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    87. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families, who are struggling with healthcare, housing, gas and groceries, allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

      PALIN: That's why I say, I, like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the tax payers looking to bail out, but ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping tho— it's got to be all about job creation too, shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track, so healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as— competitive— scary thing, but one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

    88. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      BJ Clinton was impeached, lost his law license, sold nuclear secrets to China for campaign contributions, and should be a registered sex offender.

      Sounds pretty presidential to me. Your point being?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    89. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      That would be a gift. Now if the Democrats just realize that Hillary can't win we'll have something.

      Re: The republican candidate list now includes (at least)

      Mitt Romney - Fuck wad, but might have a chance.

      Jeb Bush - Sorry, your brother fucked up your chances.

      Scott Walker - How much Koch brother's dick can you suck?

      Chris Christie - Too fat, nobody is trusting that Jersey boy with foreign policy.

      Sarah Palin - Seriously again? Getting tea bagged by the Tea Party isn't going to cut it this time either.

      Bobby Jindal - No offense, but no one has heard of you and Republicans aren't going for an Indian president.

      Carly Fiorina - Fired from HP and female? Nuff, said.

    90. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by T.E.D. · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'd be happy if we could get a GOP w/o the religion, that along with getting rid of the Citizen's United decision, and the money out of the political mess that is both parties.

      You have that now. They are called "Democrats".

    91. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Jeb Bush & Scott Walker will be taken seriously.
      The others, not so much.

    92. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by lgw · · Score: 2

      While I agree with you about " a GOP w/o the religion", do you have the first clue what the Citizen's United case was actually about? It was about a group of people who pooled their money to show a film critical of Hillary. The ruling was that you do not lose your freedom of political speech simply because you form a partnership or corporation to manage the funds needed for that speech. There have since been many similar ruling that a closely held corporation is no different from a partnership in not restricting the protected rights of the owners.

      Political speech in America has always involved money (and always involved anonymous speech). From the time when people in the British colonies were angry at King George to today, you can't spread your political message beyond the reach of your voice without money. Anonymous pamphleteering was a big deal early on, and you needed to buy a printing press to make that work. Buying a newspaper company in order to ensure your spin was heard was all the rage in the heyday of newspapers, much like starting your own cable news network was in the late 20th century.

      Assuming you want someone other than the very rich to have a political voice, you can't restrict buying ads. Most of us can't afford to buy an entire newspaper company or cable network, even if we pool our resources, but we might be able to buy a political ad. And if that's not freedom of political speech, I don't know what is.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    93. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      A true observation, but it might not correlate the way you imply.

      If you were a Republican, could you see yourself thinking, "Oh, I can openly post my pro-Republican views without fear of getting modded down on slashdot!"

      Or, "Nobody would key my car for having a Palin bumper sticker!"

      Btw, getting labeled as a Republican is very bad for business in the SW development business. It's bit me hard twice.

      Apologies for contributing to the overuse of the word "correlate".

    94. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by GiganticLyingMouth · · Score: 1

      And his birth certificate is not a sloppy forgery.

      I find it amazing that there are still birthers out there.

    95. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Um, no. Yes, CPUSA is far left, but not even on anyone's radar in American politics. If you have less than 1% of the country listening to you, you don't count.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    96. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      You missed the part about money. And don't even begin to pretend the democrats aren't all about money.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    97. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      As a moderate conservative, I never had a problem being a Republican or Democract in Silicon Valley. Then again, I don't go out of my way to alienate people with political and/or religious views. I state my opinons regardless if I get mod down, up or sideways.

    98. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Oh it will be . . . for comedians like Jon Stewart.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    99. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Hey, it could be worse. It could be the Democratic Party's candidate pool.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    100. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The republican candidate list now includes (at least) Mitt Romney Jeb Bush Scott Walker Chris Christie Sarah Palin Bobby Jindal And now Carly Fiorina wants in, too? That will be quite a crowd.

      I think Romney & Palin are out of contention, since they were both on losing tickets the last 8 years, and nothing has happened since to change that. Fiorinna too is a non starter - she's a Liberal Republican who couldn't even win her own state's senate seat, so the question of her attracting 'Red State' votes is out of the question.

      I think it could be Walker, Jindal and maybe Boehner. Although Jindal is quite a lackluster guy, so despite being a good governor, I don't see him getting ahead.

    101. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      the GOP needs to be broken because they are a sick joke right now. The democrats are only slightly worse than the GOP as a whole these days

      I expect the Democrats to be Liberal, and in that sense, they haven't disappointed.

      Problem w/ the Republicans is that they support everything that the Democrats support, maybe not at the same time. For instance, while they are dead against Obama's amnesty to illegals, that's just grandstanding, since they supported Bush when he did the same thing. They're against Obamacare, but Romney too did something like it while governor of MA. So why should Conservatives support Republicans again?

      If Conservatives have to choose b/w Liberal-lite & Liberal, they might as well either sit it out, or vote for the authentic Liberals - the Democrats.

    102. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Why not Feinstein or Boxer? Have been CA Senators for goodness knows how long. Or Jerry Brown can try running again, like he did in 1992

    103. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      If the Democrats were bots, they would have come out and supported their candidates during the midterm election. They didn't. The Republicans has the largest House majority since 1928 (before the 1929 stock market crash and Great Depression) elected by the lowest turnout since 1942 (World War 2). Go figure.

    104. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by ogdenk · · Score: 2

      We haven't seen any actual progress out of the Obama regime, just further backsliding with more of a smile. The repub and dem parties these days are 2 sides of the same coin with different corporate sponsors. Both of them view you as the enemy, and both of them are out to actively screw you over to make their sponsors money in the name of "stamping out drugs and terrorism".

      If you aren't voting Libertarian or Green you are part of the problem and are actively supporting tyranny. Those two parties are the true democrats and republicans these days.

    105. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      1. Back in 1961 people of color were called 'Negroes.' The Obama 'birth certificate' states he is "African-American". That nomenclature wasn't even used at that time. Not until the mid-1970s was "African-American" listed. 2. The birth certificate that the White House released The Certificate shows Obama's birth as August 4, 1961. The Certificate shows Barack Hussein Obama as his father. The Certificate shows his father is 25 years old, at his "Time of Birth" The Certificate shows Obama's father was born in " Kenya, East Africa". Kenya did not even exist until December 1963, two years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. Obama's father could not have been born in a country that did not yet exist. The independent Republic of Kenya, Africa was founded in December 1963. Up until then, legally and politically, the region around Kenya was known as "British East Africa Protectorate". 3. The Birth Certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". In 1978 Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children was opened. This facility was two separate hospitals in 1961, and were called "Kapi'olani Maternity Home" established 1890; and "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" opened in 1909. The names did not change until 1978, when these two hospitals merged to become Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children. So, what was the name of the hospital on the OFFICIAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE dated 1961? www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx There is none so blind as he who will not see.

    106. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      Because such institutions are generally destined to become corrupt, expensive and ineffective anyway. Corruption is rampant all the way down to the postal carriers. I don't agree with his stance on minimum wage but he wouldn't succeed in eliminating it. He's one of the better choices.

    107. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      I don't mind conservative women, but you're assuming "Republican" means conservative, it doesn't. I also don't think it takes much to have a high approval rating in Alaska.

      Obama *IS* a complete retard that has solved nothing and actually made quite a few things a lot worse. And like Bush, he thinks we're the enemy and that warrantless domestic spying is A-OK. He isn't just continuing the ex-tyrant Bush's insane schemes, he's stepped them up several notches. The guy is evil. And Palin is probably worse. She's an opportunist who would screw individuals as much as possible at the request of large companies, ESPECIALLY if there was a check in it for her.

      In short, I don't hate Palin for being "conservative" or a woman. I don't like her because she's a scumbag.

      As far as minorities go, your statement is hilarious because everyone I know that's a racist, sexist or discriminates based on religion is a Republican. Especially when it comes to mexicans or women in tech jobs. They also think the "gubmint" shouldn't tell businesses who they can't fire. They think they should be able to fire someone for being atheist and to not be able to is "wrong and immoral".

      No, I don't rally behind either of the two primary parties. Either way you are supporting tyranny and both consider you the enemy. If you aren't voting third party, you support their views.

      The only thing the republicans have left alone are my second amendment rights, and that's only because they'd lose most of their voter base if they changed stance.

    108. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it went away, it may and probably has shifted to where it is.

      No, no it hasn't. The left is still where it always was, and so is the right. We still have the same degree of far leftists and far rightists that we've always had. What we have is different proportions, but that doesn't actually change what the left and right are. It only makes the democrats liars when they claim to be leftist, since they are centrists.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    109. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      At the end of the day, neither the Republicans or the Democrats are what they seem. The only real election that counts is the primaries, where the Republican and Democrat Party are created, once the primaries are over, so is the real election. This is where the electorates choices are currently all stacked in favour of psychopathic corporations, so no matter who the electorate vote for, they are voting for the corporations candidates. So the Democrats and the Republicans are only as bad as lazy stupid Americans allow them to be at the primaries, in which something like 10% of the eligible electorate participate.

      How about politicians sitting through the normal employee application process and undergoing public testing to review their intellect, knowledge and psychology. So that when the electorate chose to vote for some know nothing idiot psychopath that will say for anything they are paid to say, the electorate will do so with full knowledge of how stupidly gullible they are to do so.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    110. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      The Republican nut jobs are a very small portion.

      Yeah, but they're the noisiest portion.

    111. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      I find it amazing that people think this topic was solved, proved without doubt, and the case is closed and not open to discussion. Especially after having any experience in photoshop/digital documents and looking at the document that was provided as said "Proof".

      BTW, you can try to intimidate and belittle all you want by calling people "birthers", but the fact remains that every professional graphics analyst that have analyzed the document state that it contains several signs of possible forgery that wouldn't show up if it was a true 'scan' of an original document.

      Same with the Selective Services form, and there have been nothing but crickets chirping when it comes to explaining the multitude of SSN numbers assigned to him, including the current one from a dead man in Connecticut, where he never lived, but did have a relative that lived and worked at a SSN office in that state.

      Never mind the fact that it is undeniable, whether born here or not, that citizenship was renounced when he lived in Indonesia as required by Indonesian law to attend school. Or the fact that only one parent was a citizen at the time of his birth, which does not meet the required "natural born citizen" as defined and discussed in various texts and Federalist papers. Even if citizenship was not denounced while in Indonesia, at best, he has dual citizenship, which disqualifies him, as he holds allegiances (citizenship) to another country, as explained by the constitution framers.

    112. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      What about conservative women and minorities so infuriates the left?

      They don't further their agenda by supporting the narrative of oppressed minorities.

    113. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      If you want to be technical he killed confederates, not americans

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    114. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      Two sides of the same coin with different corporate sponsors. Both parties have the same agenda.... lie.... get elected.... f**k the populace... retire rich.... use the cops to keep the unwashed masses out of your sight and away from your neighborhood.

    115. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      out of their sight and their neighborhood.... oops.... anyway.

    116. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by cusco · · Score: 1

      I take it you aren't actually old enough to have been politically aware when Ronnie was president. At one point he publicly "remembered" being in the trenches at Iwo Jima.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    117. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Walker? Maybe. But no one with the last name of Bush will ever be taken seriously.

    118. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      A lot of Democrats don't like her either. Unfortunately, that's how we ended up with Obama.

    119. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I the government is supporting your right to safety and such, it does so taking away the right to abuse others. That right is more important to Randians.

    120. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The Certificate shows Obama's father was born in " Kenya, East Africa". Kenya did not even exist until December 1963, two years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. Obama's father could not have been born in a country that did not yet exist.

      Yes he could. Let's say that Texas secedes from the Union. My children will have Texas, USA as their father's birth place, despite them already having been born. Kenya is the area of East Africa, with East Africa clearly stated as the country. The fact that my birth location is listed as Texas isn't an edit, or pre-cognition.

      Like all the other objections, this is looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Like the hospital names. I worked for Company A at one point. Now, it's Company C. My LinkedIn profile was entered with it as Company A long ago. At some point, LinkedIn retroactively changed the name of the company I worked for from Company A to Company C, despite the fact that Company C existed at the time, and I never worked there.

      The same happens with birth certificates. The information is digitized, and a digital copy is printed on request. My sister's birth hospital changed its name. Any birth certificate she has printed now has the "wrong name" on it as well.

      The fact that reality proves birthers wrong has no impact on their opinions. The Republican governor of HI verified the birth certificate personally, the first time such an action has been done. Is Obama a Republican conspiracy?

    121. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Never mind the fact that it is undeniable, whether born here or not, that citizenship was renounced when he lived in Indonesia as required by Indonesian law to attend school.

      Required by law, and performed aren't the same thing.

      Or the fact that only one parent was a citizen at the time of his birth, which does not meet the required "natural born citizen" as defined and discussed in various texts and Federalist papers.

      I have two children, born outside the USA, both of which were born natural born citizens. The requirement being *one* parent being a US citizen who has spent at least one day in the USA. The law isn't explicit about a minor mother who is a US citizen. But likely that would have been allowed at the time, as it is now, and the default is to give the citizenship at birth.

      Even if citizenship was not denounced while in Indonesia, at best, he has dual citizenship, which disqualifies him, as he holds allegiances (citizenship) to another country, as explained by the constitution framers.

      So you must be a citizen of Indonesia to go to school there, and Indonesia doesn't recognize dual citizenship?

      Also, there is no condition that the President may not be a dual citizen. What the framers explain, and what they put in the document must not agree on that point. And the Constitution trumps revisionist recollections of framer's writings. Remember, they were all foreign born, and nearly all what would now be considered dual-citizens. But the rules were so much different then that it isn't really comparable.

    122. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So it would be the same as Bush Jr. Got it.

    123. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      You know things are bad when GWB was considered one of the good ones...

    124. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by lgw · · Score: 1

      So the top 1% can afford to have a political voice individually, without forming corporations, while the rest of us need some way to pool the money of thousands in order to accomplish that. Explain again how restricting corporate speech hurts that 1%? Would you have the government regulate the political speech of newspapers and cable news channels?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    125. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by drfred79 · · Score: 1

      How exactly does taxing someone empower them. You don't even need taxes for social programs, just look at our deficit.

      That's not even arguing that small business owners are most hurt by artificially inflated wages.

    126. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by paiute · · Score: 1

      He is not "natural born". He was born in another country.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    127. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by drfred79 · · Score: 1

      No I never did notice that. I post with my screen name. But I've also watched my karma go down because progressives use down votes to silence dissent. Maybe the pro Republican commenters are tired of being punished for their opinion?

    128. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by drfred79 · · Score: 1

      If you understand libertarianism you'd understand that consumer protection and federal education programs are contrary to the libertarian platform. Allowing governments to experiment with those issues at state and local levels is harder for governments, politicians, unions, and corporations to influence than 60 senators. Libertarians are the true populists.

    129. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Sique · · Score: 1

      Which is just the same as keeping religion (or church) and state separate. Thanks for supporting.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    130. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      The two are not mutually exclusive.

    131. Re: Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by richarddrake · · Score: 1

      Enough about you and yor friends! Facts might be refreshing.

    132. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by paiute · · Score: 1

      Sure they are. He was not natural born.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    133. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      We still have the same degree of far leftists and far rightists that we've always had. What we have is different proportions, but that doesn't actually change what the left and right are.

      Perhaps not in academic political science, but if you have 0.01% communists, and everyone else grouped around fascism and libertarianism, you can bet that practical political discourse will apply "left" and "right" to the 99.99%.

    134. Re: Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Voting should be a civic obligation for everyone in this country. The United States is supposed to be the role model for democracy, but 58 other countries have better voter turnout. Some third-world countries are able to get 90% voters out to the polls. Americans suck as voters.

    135. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by sribe · · Score: 1

      Rand Paul would break the GOP; possibly the greatest gift the the democrats could ever receive.

      In the short term. In the long term that breakage would be the greatest gift the republicans could ever receive. That party needs to be shattered and re-built from the ground up.

    136. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Of course he is. Natural born citizen. US mother. And his birth certificate is not a sloppy forgery.

      I would have figured that argument was truly dead and buried, along with "the moon landing was faked" and "9/11 was an inside job."

    137. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Before the media decided she should be destroyed, she had the highest approval rating of any governor.

      That says less about the media and more about the judgement of Alaskans.

      She is extremely bright.

      I lean conservative and even that doesn't pass the laugh test for me.

      If the media focused on Obama's many, many blunders, you would think he was a complete retard

      Both conservatives and liberals tend to agree that Obama is a disappointment as a president, though usually not for the same reasons. There was no "media takedown" of Palin, any more that if you say something stupid, the media love to feed on it, like they feed on any "controversy."

    138. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      So the top 1% can afford to have a political voice individually, without forming corporations, while the rest of us need some way to pool the money of thousands in order to accomplish that. Explain again how restricting corporate speech hurts that 1%? Would you have the government regulate the political speech of newspapers and cable news channels?

      Fine, but keep in mind any "corporate speech" restrictions would also restrict the ACLU, EFF, Southern Poverty Law Center, basically any non-profit that we like. And of course it would also be completely unconstitutional. To put some restrictions in place requires a constitutional amendment.

    139. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      The per-person money limits being removed helps the Republicans far more than the Democrats. Yes, the Dems are still playing the game, because if they don't they will lose every election. But if you are looking for the party that has the most to gain by finding a way around the CU decision, the Democrats are your party.

    140. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      You must have missed the last election. Democrats were shellacked.

      You must have missed the last election. Low turnout, which always favors Republicans, but every minimum wage increase passed, pot legaization passed, person hood amendments failed etc. In other words the liberal agenda made lots of progress. Here's a nice analysis by a GOPer:

      http://blog.chron.com/goplifer...

      "Democrats were shellacked"...through the power of gerrymandering and record low voter turnout. I think we are going to continue to see these contradictory election results (over 50% of a State's population is liberal, but over 50% of a State's elected candidates are conservative) until the districts can be redrawn in 2020. Of course, the Democrats need to have control in 2020 to redraw the boundries.... chicken meet egg.

    141. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Also https://mayday.us/

    142. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      "American political norms" have shifted tremendously over the last 30 years. I am of the opinion that the Overton Window has shifted towards the right. We can probably argue all day why/how that happened, but the bottom line is that Reagan would be pretty center... even perhaps slightly liberal on some issues (like immigration) in today's politics.

      A tea party person considers Hillary Clinton liberal.
      A liberal/moderate person considers Hillary Clinton center.

      Mainstream news doesn't really make any fine grained distinctions other than blue/red. So yeah, Hillary is lumped into the 'blue' category, but that is just an arbitrary bucket. In terms of the history of political policies in this country, Hillary is pretty middle of the road. Just like her husband.

      I'm sure that Hillary/Bill would have had more liberal policies if they thought they could, but they both seem to be pragmatists and not idealists when it comes to actual actions, not speeches.

    143. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      If you want to be technical he killed confederates, not americans

      I thought one of Lincoln's big legal arguments for the Civil War was that there was no constitutional standing for the Southern secession, so they were not a foreign country; they were rebellious Americans.

    144. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Considering Reagan is known historically as the worst US president in modern history, I say good riddance. Another "Reagan" would effectively be the end of our planet.

      "The worst US president?" By whose measure?

      I'm not Reagan's biggest fan, but GWB and perhaps Carter are worse modern US president.

    145. Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      RR wrote that the biggest mistakes he ever made were in trusting that democrats (Tip O'Neil mainly) would keep their end of the bargain. In the tax increase deal, RR had a deal with then speaker Tip O'Neil that for every dollar of increased revenue, there would be $3 of tax cuts. Democrats double crossed him and there was only about $0.30 cents of tax cuts. The amnesty deal was supposed to result in border enforcement, which the democratic congress never funded. Bush could have enforced the border, but we were sold out by him too. If JFK were running for office now, championing tax cuts and promising to destroy communism, today's democrats would denounce him as a radical rightwing nutjob. And don't forget that under Reagan, top marginal tax rates decreased from 70% to 28%.

  2. A millionaire who won't pay back her loans by McGruber · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Carly Fiorina still has not paid off the loans her 2010 campaign took out, despite having a net worth of $30 million to $120 million according to campaign paperwork she filed in 2009. From the WP article:

    The organization, Carly for California, still owed vendors nearly $500,000 as of the end of September, according to Federal Election Commission filings. The committee’s outstanding debts included more than $80,000 to strategist Martin Wilson and his former firm; $43,000 owed to D.C. law firm Patton Boggs, where campaign counsel Benjamin Ginsberg worked at the time; $36,000 to fundraiser Renee Croce; $5,000 to press aide Jennifer Kerns; and $7,500 to political director Jeff Corless.

    The Fiorina campaign also owed $30,000 to Joe Shumate, a storied political strategist in California who served as Fiorina’s senior adviser and died one month before Election Day in 2010.

    Fiorina “hasn’t really communicated with anybody in 18 months about how she intends to deal with the campaign debt,” said Wilson, now a vice president at the California Chamber of Commerce. “Hopefully, if she gets more serious about running for another office, she’ll revisit the issue and get some of those bills paid off.”

    1. Re:A millionaire who won't pay back her loans by meustrus · · Score: 1

      So she won't appeal to the millions of Americans who just used the last of their paychecks to finally pay off their overdue medical bills instead of getting nice Christmas presents for their grandmas. But those people vote Democrat anyway. She'll be just fine with the advertising demographic on far right talk shows. You know, the people targeted with advertisements on how to get the IRS off their backs.

      --
      I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
    2. Re:A millionaire who won't pay back her loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here in Cali we really dodged bullet when this hack was up for election.

      This story is a microcosm for what she would have done to the state. More loans to cover governing incompetence, letting the tax payer eat the fallout.

      Funnily enough, Jerry Brown, who despite being a Democrat and a "Liberal" has been an absolute budget axe murderer. Deep cuts across the board delivered with a serious, no nonsense, upfront policy. He effectively said "Here is plan that depends on raising X revenue. If we don't raise revenue, we will cut Y" - And so far cuts have fallen exactly where promised.

      Also funnily enough, the California public seems an awful lot more keen on raising revenue nowadays.

      FYI, the Republicans in this state are fucking useless. Bunch of fucking circus clowns making noise, fucking everything up they can touch like a bunch of pissed of toddlers with absent parents.

      If you want real cuts, hire a Democrat. If you want to scream about cuts while doing nothing about it, hire a Republican.

  3. Um, what? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    She was a largely incompetent CEO.

    WTF skills does she thinks she brings to the table as a fscking President?

    Pretty much her entire time at HP was marked with terrible decisions, bad planning, and disastrous outcomes.

    Well, I guess that's no different from Presidents, really.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Um, what? by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From her perspective, this move makes perfect sense. Megalomaniac fuck-ups never realize that they are the problem. They are not equipped for it.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Um, what? by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      She was a largely incompetent CEO. WTF skills does she thinks she brings to the table as a fscking President?

      Ask George W Bush.

      Pretty much her entire time at HP was marked with terrible decisions, bad planning, and disastrous outcomes.

      See previous answer.

    3. Re:Um, what? by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The ultimate horror for me, as a voter, is realizing that I may have to choose between Carly Fiorina and Hillary Clinton—between someone who nearly bankrupted one of the most profitable companies in the Bay Area and someone who seems to be hopelessly authoritarian in her positions on most issues—in effect, a choice between an incompetent Republican and an ultra-competent one.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:Um, what? by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      Some people just want to run things.

      Whether it's run into the ground or the sky doesn't matter, since they won't be the test dummy. That honor goes to us.

    5. Re:Um, what? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Leaderships skills are, apparently, no longer a qualification for President... Charisma and good talking points suffice.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:Um, what? by sjbe · · Score: 4, Informative

      How's that Hopey-Changey guy working out?

      Mediocre mostly. That said it's unclear what Obama has to do with the profound incompetence of George W Bush. Obama has his own set of defects that are unique to him. GWB is without question the least competent president we've had since probably Herbert Hoover.

      I bet he's going to make the Middle East stable, stop warrantless wiretapping, get the US out of Afghanistan.

      Nobody is going to make the Middle East stable particularly after Bush the Lesser started two wars over there that we are still dealing with over a decade later. And anyone who expected any president to voluntarily give up their expanded surveillance powers is a naive fool.

      Oh, yeah, and reset relations with Russia.

      Kinda hard to do that when you are dealing with a megalomaniac like Putin. You go ahead and tell everyone how to play nice with Russia because nobody else seems to have a good idea.

      And I bet he comes up with healthcare reform that will allow people to keep their insurance plans and doctors, too.

      Most people did. And now millions more have insurance that previously could not afford any. (including myself btw) But way to miss the big picture over rhetorical nitpicking. Yes there are significant problems with the law but the basics of what it accomplishes are a good thing.

    7. Re:Um, what? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Informative

      Communism, really? So which candidate supports workers owning the means of production, getting rid of money, and, ultimately, the government?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    8. Re:Um, what? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Leninism? Okay. The definition of leninism is "dictatorship of proletariat plus electrification of the whole country".
      I don't think that works out either.

      Neither does fascism, by the way. Maybe fascism lite.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    9. Re:Um, what? by Maxwell · · Score: 1

      So your saying Bush is retarded?

    10. Re:Um, what? by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      Which guy were you talking about, again? I can't seem to tell the difference, as your statement applies equally to both...

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    11. Re:Um, what? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1, Informative

      Correct. And as with Leninism, fascism is government telling you what and how resources are produced and provisioned. Take for example the National Socialist German Workers' Party - Nazi Party; it's a fascist regime operated under the auspices of socialism.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    12. Re:Um, what? by McGruber · · Score: 1

      Megalomaniac fuck-ups never realize that they are the problem.

      I wish I had submitted my story with that as its headline!

    13. Re:Um, what? by ITRambo · · Score: 1

      At least she didn't trade Sammy Sosa to Dell.

    14. Re:Um, what? by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      You forgot Fundraising.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    15. Re:Um, what? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      a choice between an incompetent Republican and an ultra-competent one.

      You'd regret having an "ultra-competent" person as POTUS? Your political beliefs that rigid? Having a competent people in office is more important than ideology, especially with regard to the entire country as a whole. Extreme partisanship and narrow-minded thinking is what's most troubling us now.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    16. Re:Um, what? by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      She was a largely incompetent CEO.

      WTF skills does she thinks she brings to the table as a fscking President?

      Pretty much her entire time at HP was marked with terrible decisions, bad planning, and disastrous outcomes.

      Well, I guess that's no different from Presidents, really.

      And thankfully she left Lucent Technologies before doing the same to it! (Though to be fair it happened to us anyway).

    17. Re:Um, what? by mr_mischief · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Marxism on a local, voluntary basis can work pretty well. There are communes and kibbutzes all over. What doesn't work is applying that to a nation state.

    18. Re:Um, what? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I'd rather not have an ultra-competent authoritarian as President, regardless of party. That's the absolute last thing this country needs.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    19. Re:Um, what? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      There's a huge gap between leninism advertising and leninism practice. The latter is systematic murder.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    20. Re:Um, what? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You go ahead and tell everyone how to play nice with Russia...

      That you think "playing nice with Russia" could possibly work indicates a complete disconnect from reality.

      And now millions more have insurance that previously could not afford any

      ___Because they're forced to do so by law.

      ___In most cases, insurance rates are much higher than before

      ___Millions also have lost insurance coverage.

      ___It is now well established that Obamacare was brought into existence by threat and fraud.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    21. Re:Um, what? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      actually, the electrification part has indeed happened.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    22. Re:Um, what? by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      It is now well established that Obamacare was brought into existence by threat and fraud.

      I see. So being passed by the established legal process is now considered "threat and fraud".

    23. Re:Um, what? by sjbe · · Score: 1

      That you think "playing nice with Russia" could possibly work indicates a complete disconnect from reality.

      That you don't understand that "playing nice" is a colloquialism indicates you completely missed the point.

      Because they're forced to do so by law.

      Yep. We are forced to pay for lots of things by law. All those tanks and planes and medicare benefits and government salaries are required by law too and we all share the benefits of them whether we like it or not. And I'm ok with that. Medical care isn't free even if someone doesn't have insurance. If they don't pay then the rest of us do. Everyone uses medical care so everyone should have to have a little skin in the game.

      In most cases, insurance rates are much higher than before

      Insurance rates have been going up by double digit percentages for years. Nothing new there. The ACA did not and could not possibly fix that. At best it may minimize the rate of increase. The reasons for insurance rates climbing have little to do with access to coverage.

      Millions also have lost insurance coverage.

      Wrong. Millions have changed insurance coverage. HUGE difference. People now have access to coverage regardless of their employment situation. Losing access to health insurance because you lost a job is profoundly immoral. If someone chooses not to pay for coverage that is their right but since they are forcing that cost on others then they should be penalized.

      It is now well established that Obamacare was brought into existence by threat and fraud.

      Really? What threat? Nobody was threatened to pass the ACA. And it was passed by congress and (mostly) okay'd by the Supreme Court. What fraud? That Obama said (stupidly) that everyone could keep their coverage if they liked it? Way to miss the big picture dude.

    24. Re:Um, what? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Feel free to use it the next time ;-)

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    25. Re:Um, what? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      She was a largely incompetent CEO. WTF skills does she thinks she brings to the table as a fscking President?

      Ask George W Bush.

      Well, George W did serve almost 6 years as governor of Texas, our 2nd most populous state. He won election twice to that office and resigned it after being elected president the first time. Ronald Reagan was a former governor of California and before that, his most "political" job was being president of the SAG. Former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both served as governors. You don't have to like Bush or think he was a particularly good governor although he did win re-election which means most voters liked him just fine there, but the fact is that Americans in general do think that serving as governor makes you qualified to run for president. That doesn't mean you'll get elected (Milt Romney, Mike Dukakis, Jimmy Carter in 1980). The last non-politician to mount a somewhat successful campaign to run for the presidency was Ross Perot and he had bona fide business credentials, paid for a privately organized hostage rescue in Iran that went well and made him look like he had King Kong cajones when the US attempt to do the same became a spectacularly infamous failure for Jimmy Carter's administration and played a part in his 1980 loss, and he ran with a narrow but specific platform (NAFTA bad. Paying down US debt good). Fiorina is pretty delusional in that Americans won't elect somebody with zero political experience. If she speaks well on the campaign stops she can make some noise for a while, but the primaries always wear down the non-professional politicians. Perot had to run as a 3rd party candidate using his own money (mostly) and while he was very successful by 3rd party standards in the USA, in the end he did not come close to victory either time he won. He may well have influenced the outcome of the 1992 election though by siphoning more votes from George HW Bush than Bill Clinton.

    26. Re:Um, what? by aralin · · Score: 1

      She will oversee our merger with Canada.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    27. Re:Um, what? by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

      Presumable he is referring to this:

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/th...

      One of the ACA architects has stated that:

      A) the bill was written in such a way so that the CBO did not interpret the fine's as Taxes.

      b) said : “In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in—you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed, okay. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to passLook, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”

      this was in the news recently.

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    28. Re:Um, what? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I see. So being passed by the established legal process is now considered "threat and fraud".

      Your "legal process", reconciliation is used for budget change bills not new law.

    29. Re:Um, what? by khallow · · Score: 1

      we all share the benefits of them whether we like it or not

      I'm sure we all share in those kickbacks from the defense contracts, right?

    30. Re:Um, what? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      If someone is trying to shoot me, I'd rather they were a bad shot. Competence isn't always a good thing...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    31. Re:Um, what? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      In most cases, insurance rates are much higher than before

      I thought that the rates dropped for most..

    32. Re:Um, what? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      ___In most cases, insurance rates are much higher than before

      You know, the insurance rates were going to rise regardless of the health care law or not. That's what they do. The insurance companies do it because they can get away with it, and now they have some convenient BS so they can pretend that rates weren't going up. The biggest flaw in the law (besides that it's not single-payer) is that it does little to actually bring costs down.

    33. Re:Um, what? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      we all share the benefits of them whether we like it or not

      I'm sure we all share in those kickbacks from the defense contracts, right?

      If, like so many people seem to espouse these days, your metric for success is "more jobs," then sure, we all benefit a tiny amount. Of course, there's that pesky opportunity cost..

    34. Re:Um, what? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Haha! Hey, that AC who works at Russia Today is back! Welcome back, comrade.

  4. she almost crashed both Lucent and HP by swschrad · · Score: 5, Informative

    so let's not talk any further about Carly ruining the US, OK?

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:she almost crashed both Lucent and HP by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Bush was horrible at business as well.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:she almost crashed both Lucent and HP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What's left to ruin?

      For once, Carly's education will come in handy. She can teach medieval torture techniques to the NSA. She used them well at Lucent and HP.

    3. Re:she almost crashed both Lucent and HP by pla · · Score: 2

      Bush was horrible at business as well.

      And just look how well he did as PUSA! XD

      I might seriously vote for Jeb before I'd vote for Carly - And I say that as someone who would vote for a Satan/Hitler ticket before I'd vote for Jeb.

    4. Re:she almost crashed both Lucent and HP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Which Bush? Bush Senior had a relatively quiet presidency, and he won a theater of engagement in Iraq when adequately provoked (as in a complete overrun of a US ally.) He also had the smarts to bail when done and plead with Israel not to retaliate when Saddam started attacking them in hopes of bringing them in.

      The economy (not really his fault) and the vote split between the Republicans and Ross Perot is what sunk him.

      I'd probably consider him the best President we have had in the past 40 years, especially considering the fact that the Iron Curtain fell during his administration and the US had no significant enemies to worry about for almost a decade.

    5. Re:she almost crashed both Lucent and HP by halivar · · Score: 4, Informative

      By the time Bush Sr. got into office, the decline and fall of the USSR was already well under way. I read a fascinating article (can't find it, sorry) recently detailing how Reagan convinced the Saudis to flood the oil market; with USSR oil production taking up enough of its GDP to put it into an economic death spiral. Interestingly enough, the Saudis are once again flooding the market (according to Iran, which has been raising a small stink about it), and the Russians are still oil-dependent.

    6. Re:she almost crashed both Lucent and HP by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      I'd rather have someone who has some business experience (ideally as a success, but I'd take failure as well) as President than someone with zero business management experience.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:she almost crashed both Lucent and HP by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I'd probably consider him the best President we have had in the past 40 years,

      It's definitely him and Clinton at the top of that list. Although part of their benefit is being in the right place at the right time, they also were both bright and able to get their agendas through. Far better than "brainy but ineffective" or "brainless but browbeaty". And better than "idealistic to the point of ignoring reality" (which covers two in the past forty years)

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    8. Re:she almost crashed both Lucent and HP by halivar · · Score: 1

      The linked "fact check" is a guy's alternative opinion on how to interpret the numbers. It is not a conclusive counter-proof.

    9. Re:she almost crashed both Lucent and HP by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I'd rather someone who has a record of success before they became president. Note: not 100% success. You're correct that having, and learning from, failures is a valuable skill. But I think before you become president you should have some success under your belt

      What has she done that shows she learned from her failure, as opposed to deluded herself into "not my fault. To wit, what company did she successfully lead?

      Also, I think business experience is not as important as management experience. I look at, for instance, generals who've become excellent presidents. Or governors. And I can certainly imagine a large non-profit giving the requisite experience.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    10. Re:she almost crashed both Lucent and HP by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Minor nit to pick: "WWII fighter pilot". No. WWII naval torpedo plane pilot.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    11. Re:she almost crashed both Lucent and HP by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      So, he kept a fortune teller on his senior staff?

    12. Re:she almost crashed both Lucent and HP by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Infamously, Bush Sr. tried to both ride on Reagan's reputation and separate himself from it at the same time, saying "I am not Reagan."

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    13. Re:she almost crashed both Lucent and HP by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The economy (not really his fault) and the vote split between the Republicans and Ross Perot is what sunk him.

      In my circle of friends, Ross Perot stole Clinton votes, not Perot votes.

  5. aaahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    hahahahahhahahah.... can she run with Meg Whitman as VP, vs. Hillary-Warren?

  6. She does have experience destroying companies... by gweihir · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... that were once great. I bet she can do the same with a whole nation-state. From statements by some former HP executives, her specialty is "shoot-the-messenger", which means that she has one of the worst possible management mistakes down pat and uses it as standard operating procedure. It really does not get much worse than this.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  7. Sure, vote for Carly by OzPeter · · Score: 2

    But be warned that if she wins the election, you'll have keep buying the control of your local representatives over and over.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  8. HAHAHAHAHA ,,,, by Mansing · · Score: 3, Funny

    ,,,, breathe .... HAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Glutton for punishment? Didn't the stomping in the 2010 Senate race teach her anything?

  9. With her dismal record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How does she expect to compete in the GOP primaries against....

    (pause)

    Hem, well, good luck then, Ms. Fiorina.

  10. Once upon a time. by Jahoda · · Score: 1

    I can remember a time when the claim of the republican party was that its members were successful businesspersons and leaders of industry. (Whether or not this is or was factually correct in-practice is up for debate, I am just sayin').

    1. Re:Once upon a time. by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      LOL ... well, the modern definition of "successful businesspersons and leaders of industry" is measured as "hasn't been indicted yet".

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Once upon a time. by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Yeah but you have to try really hard to get indicted today. (Or not be very rich in which case they don't want you.)

  11. Not my first choice by ErichTheRed · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know a few people who worked at HP in the 2000s, and even with the sour grapes filters on, every one of them describes how she let HP rot away, killing divisions and outsourcing any function she could for quick balance sheet cash hits. There's still some soul left there though -- the non consumer PC and laptop division is doing OK, as is their server line with the exception of the Itanium mess. Their software and the former EDS is a disaster, and let's not even mention the Autonomy acquisition. (OK, Autonomy was done after she was kicked out.) Still, HP is a long way from its engineering-driven roots and I don't know if it can ever get back there.

    Politics aside, I can't see what she could offer as President.

    1. Re:Not my first choice by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Bankrupt customers can't buy much.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:Not my first choice by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I know you didn't imply it, but Itanium was something almost from the John Young/Louis Platt era. Actually, Carly would have done well to have killed that one.

    3. Re:Not my first choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Carly was a spectacular failure at HP, simply disregard the Carly-spin. I believe HP's stock price was down by ~40% during her tenure. Since HP was a blue chip tech company, this translates into hundreds of billions of market cap lost and portfolio damage for millions. Not to mention the larger societal loss; HP was a culture and thought leader in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. They've never really recovered that position since.

      By the standards Carly purports to hold, Carly was a disaster. HP would have been better off hiring random strangers off the street. Silicon Valley would have been better off nominating a room full of monkeys with typewriters. The US would have been better off loaning HP to China, for $1, including all IP developed and profits earned for the duration, and then reclaiming the old HP back once Carly went away.

      Carly is looking for a job. We should support her and tell her to keep looking. Just not here.

    4. Re:Not my first choice by Kabukiwookie · · Score: 1

      You do realise that with the establisment of BRICS that the US market has become less important as has the US dollar as a reserve currency. This is something that the US govt is fighting hard to prevent.

      --
      The mountains of madness have many little plateaus of sanity - Terry Pratchett.
  12. WHOOSH every single one of you! by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Funny

    The OP was obviously joking!

    So much whoosh!

    Right?

    right?

    Oh dear god.

    America is dying of political trolling.

    1. Re:WHOOSH every single one of you! by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Dunno, it's just bizarre enough to be true.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  13. Won't happen by MikeRT · · Score: 2

    She's a second rate, female Mitt Romney with the business acumen of George W. Bush. She'll get into the primaries, get ripped to shreds and probably run off crying about sexism because her track record will make the Republican base convulse at even thought of her winning the nomination.

    1. Re:Won't happen by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      She's a second rate, female Mitt Romney with the business acumen of George W. Bush. She'll get into the primaries, get ripped to shreds and probably run off crying about sexism because her track record will make the Republican base convulse at even thought of her winning the nomination.

      That's an insult to second rate female Mitt Romneys and GW Bushes.
      I would love to see her in a debate with Hillary Clinton. I can't stand Hillary but I would be sitting with a bowl of popcorn enjoying ever minute watching her rip Carly to shreds. She would probably still complain about sexism though.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    2. Re:Won't happen by towermac · · Score: 2

      That's not really fair, to Mitt Romney I mean. He ran a business junkyard; that's what that investment company was/is. Companies were already broken and failing by the time his group touched them. The closest he came to taking over a company and running it, was the Salt Lake Olympics, which turned out to be a decent entry on his resume.

      I'm not saying Romney would have done a better job running HP, although it's hard to imagine him doing any worse. But to his credit, he never tried. He seems to stick to his core competency pretty well.

  14. Try running for Mayor first by cabbi · · Score: 1

    CEO's don't have a good track record in political offices. The good ones learn the differences between running a business and being a politician, but it takes time. Someone should tell her that the Presidency is not a good 'starter' office to hold.

  15. Re:Against Clinton? Good luck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Republicans could put a Ham Sandwhich against Hillary and win. That's what is so frustrating about the Democrats. They think that just because they want Hillary's cock that she can win the White House. I'm a registered Republican swing voter who has voted almost entirely for Democrats for the past 3 elections.

    If the Democrats chose Elizabeth Warren: I'll vote Democrat. If they chose Hillary I'm voting 3rd Party unless the Republican Party nominates Rand Paul. He's 75% the man his father was, but after the last 14 years of Republicrats consider it a protest vote for some REAL change. A vote for Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush is a vote for the Plutocracy(DUH).

    Back to Carly Fiorina, if the Republicans think Mitt Romney was bad: I would vote for Hillary Clinton before I voted for a Margaret Thatcher 2.0.

    That bitch is crazy incompetent on wheels. She's "Gordon Gecko greedy" mixed with "Newt Gingrich level retarded". The only reason to even have her in the race is as a spoiler candidate to pull votes away from the most attractive male candidate during the Republican primary. Her first move as President would probably be to sell the US Navy to China and expect the US Air Force to get their air superiority fighters off the coast of hostile nations by asking them to work smarter and offering them vouchers for 10% off Amtrack tickets. Bonus points if she suggests getting them in the air by "pulling on their bootstraps". That bitch thinks just because shoving her head up her own ass has turned her in to a gravity defying perpetual motion machine, that the rest of us can be so effective at demonstrating the colossal heights of the Dunning Kruger effect which can be achieved if you work hard at it.

    I would ACTUALLY vote for an Adolf Hitler/Stalin ticket before I voted for Carly and it wouldn't even be a hard decision. Gas chambers vs 99% unemployment? That bitch makes Gas Chambers and concentration camps seem appealing by comparison. Gulags vs Carly? Gulags every time. FUCK CARLY.

  16. They're gonna need a bigger clown car. by jddj · · Score: 1

    There is nobody, in any party, who I see on the horizon that I'm excited to vote for.

    Can't give the electorate something to run from - got to give 'em something to run to. And I haven't seen it yet.

  17. Why settle for second rate failure? by Tridus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Unlike the other candidates, Carly has a proven track record of spectacular failure.

    Don't settle for less, vote for first rate failure in 2016!

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    1. Re:Why settle for second rate failure? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I dunno, personally I'm thinking of switching to Democrat and voting for Joe Biden in the primary. He'd make one hilarious president. Assuming we survive him, we could look back and say "wow, that was amazing". It'd give stand-ups and political cartoon artists material for several seasons. It'd be the most entertaining presidency since Bill Clinton's second term, albeit for different reasons.

      Carly, on the other hand, would grimly and with focused intention engineer a spectacular failure while speaking pointy-haired gibberish to the press. This is not nearly as funny.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  18. Bad CEOx2-Failed Candidatex2 by biggaijin · · Score: 1

    After a failed merger attempt at Lucent and a failed merger attempt and other disastrous actions at HP, she failed spectacularly as a political candidate. And now she "is considering" trying again. She is so full of herself that she is in danger of exploding. The only thing she has consistently succeeded at is hiring press agents for herself. This "announcement" is a good example of that. She's done nothing in recent years except spend her golden parachute, and yet we are still talking about her.

    Judging from her behevior at HP, her first act as President of the US would be to remove George Washington's picture from the $1 bill and replace it with her own just as she did with the portraits of Hewlett and Packard that graced the lobbies of all HP locations when she arrived there.

  19. Re:Against Clinton? Good luck. by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    Totally underrated post.

  20. George HW Bush by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd probably consider him the best President we have had in the past 40 years, especially considering the fact that the Iron Curtain fell during his administration and the US had no significant enemies to worry about for almost a decade.

    I think calling the elder Bush the best President we've had in 40 years is more opinion than fact but he certainly was among the most qualified guys we've had in the job. Reagan gets the love from Republicans but I think Bush Sr. was a better president overall. Congressman, Ambassador to the UN, Envoy to China, Director of CIA, and Vice President. Unlike his son he was actually genuinely qualified for the job - at least as much as anyone can be. He was quite good at foreign policy which is about 2/3 of the job description for a president. Unfortunately he was not especially talented at domestic policy and even said publicly that he didn't enjoy it much. He did nothing to combat deficit spending and basically continued policies started under Reagan. When the economy tanked (not really his fault) near the election he was pretty much screwed regarding getting re-elected.

    1. Re:George HW Bush by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He also knew how to stand up to the hawks in his party. After Kuwait was freed, people in his party/administration called for the US to keep marching past the Kuwait border and all the way to Baghdad. Bush Sr refused to do so, rightly seeing that this would be a disaster. Too bad Bush Jr listened to those exact same people and made the mistake his father avoided.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:George HW Bush by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The problem with Bush Sr was that he was after Reagan. Eventually all that deficit spending was going to catch up with a President after Reagan. He just happened to be that President.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:George HW Bush by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Jr. deliberately made that mistake. He blamed Dad's "mistake" of not ousting Saddam for costing him the re-election. So Jr. wanted revenge on Saddam for costing Daddy a reelection.

  21. Perfect Reason for Another Campaign by BBCWatcher · · Score: 1

    Assuming there's no legal barrier -- and there aren't many nowadays -- a new, even quixotic campaign allows the very same (mostly) donors/suckers/bribers to kick in more money to pay off the previous campaign's debts. It's a terrific racket.

  22. Baa Political Ad, Very Baa by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

    Let's not forget the infamous "Demon Sheep" political ad.

  23. I'd really love to see a woman in the White House by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

    Unfortunately, Ms Fiorina isn't among the women I'd like to see hold any political office at all. Besides, what is it with businesspeople thinking their experience automatically makes them fit to govern? Sure, some 'sound business principles' are appropriate to the role. But it's the job of government to serve all of its consituents' best interests, not to make a profit come hell or high water.

    Corporotocracy be damned - the people are the country's shareholders, not its employees.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  24. Joe Biden? by mi · · Score: 2

    Joe Biden is a lunatic living in his own world (fun though his world appears to be). Please, do nominate him. Thank you!

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  25. BWAHAHHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH! by The+Last+Gunslinger · · Score: 1

    OMFG, BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

  26. Jerry and his canoe theory of government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're always going upstream, you paddle a little on the left and a little on the right, and stay mostly in the middle.

    Jerry is a total pragmatist with long range vision. Which other governors of states in the 70s advocated for a communications satellite because information connectivity was the wave of the future? It would have been built in CA (jobs! and we design and build all the satellites here anyway, or at least we did in the 70s and 80s.. AZ now has a comm satellite plant.. they bought it with subsidies).

    Look at him cracking the whip on the UC regents! When I went to UC, annual fees (wasn't called tuition back in the 70s) were $1000 which was an amount you could make with a summer minimum wage job ($2.50/hr). Now, they're talking $20k or more, and wanting to raise it 20+% over the next 5 years. Jerry said, no way, no how.

  27. Doesn't matter who runs... by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

    No matter who the Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter) nominate that person will become poisoned by Washington. It is a cesspool of lobbyists, special interests and wedge issues.

    Policy has become a bidding war between rich corporations.

    1. Re:Doesn't matter who runs... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Even the most optimistic call it "losing your soul".

      But really, speaking as a libertarian-leaning voter who often votes Republican, (but will vote Democrat if I think the social issues of the day are more important) I have to say, this (the current 'Pub candidates) is an abysmal lineup. You'd think the 'Pubs would have learned from the drumming they got in the last two presidential elections. But no, it's still not about the message, it's about whether the candidate has a good profile and enough money to run.

      And one of them might win.

      And that would tend to solidify the belief that it's not about the message.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:Doesn't matter who runs... by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      I think that the problem stems from the fact that it's difficult to attract "good" candidates to run for office. As soon as one enters Federal politics you can pretty much give up your privacy. That's a big price to pay and one that not many are willing to sign up for. It's a price that not only you have to pay but also your family has to pay.

      I admire people that have the courage to run for office. It's certainly not something I could ever do. So the pool of prospective candidates is reduced to one of relative weakness. I'm not pretending to have any answers...it's just an observation of where we are.

    3. Re:Doesn't matter who runs... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > I think that the problem stems from the fact that it's difficult to attract "good" candidates to run for office.

      Yes, although the reasons might be complex (privacy is certainly a factor) the adage "anyone truly qualified for the job wouldn't want it" would seem to apply.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    4. Re:Doesn't matter who runs... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      It is a cesspool of lobbyists, special interests and wedge issues.

      Sounds like it needs to be nuked from orbit just to be sure.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    5. Re:Doesn't matter who runs... by kashosoft · · Score: 1
  28. What is her platform? by pulse2600 · · Score: 4, Funny

    What is she going to do? Orchestrate a merger between US and Canada, then rebrand everything from the US as Canada, and everything from Canada as US? Then sell off Canada again when she finally realizes it is a disaster?

    1. Re:What is her platform? by tomhath · · Score: 2

      Maybe try to sell maple syrup for $1000 per ounce?

    2. Re:What is her platform? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      What is she going to do? Orchestrate a merger between US and Canada, then rebrand everything from the US as Canada, and everything from Canada as US? Then sell off Canada again when she finally realizes it is a disaster?

      I'm thinking she would do a lot of energetic changes, the final result being that the US would be a much smaller country.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  29. Dear Carly, no man will EVER vote for you. by emil · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This wasn't used against you in your senate run (which certainly lacked any semblance of tact), but I GUARANTEE you that your past will resurface when you did things like this:

    http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1005572/how-mike-capellas-castrated-carly

    ...Carly did not tell Capellas that the sad love affair between Heloise and Abelard ended up with the man in the affair being castrated... when Capellas found out he shuddered and said: "I'm glad I didn't know".

    And this, as well as the "bad hair?"

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/09/carly-fiorina-open-mic-vi_n_606723.html

    "God, what is that hair?"

  30. DOA by meustrus · · Score: 1

    I can't find a single positive comment on /. about Fiorina. We've got a surprisingly diverse collection of political opinions here (even if the ideologues seem convinced that /. is some kind of haven for extreme political views opposing their own), and if not even the trolls can find something supportive to say it seems pretty clear that this candidacy is totally DOA.

    --
    I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
    1. Re:DOA by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Yes, because the Slashdot community is clearly representative of the entire cross section of America.

    2. Re:DOA by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I was expecting some argument for and against, but you appear to be right the only disagreement is how badly she would do. Unless the purpose is to make another candidate look amazing, I'm not sure the point.

    3. Re:DOA by meustrus · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sure some groups of idiots would vote for her. But elections in this country typically come down to less than a 10% margin. Surely you can agree that Slashdot is at least representative of 10% of the population's political views.

      --
      I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
    4. Re:DOA by infosinger · · Score: 1

      I think that this is one of the few times I have EVER seen almost complete agreement here on something. One thing we know for sure is that Carly has plenty of references and I don't think they will help her win.

    5. Re:DOA by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately that single issue that 80% uses is the letter behind the candidate's name.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    6. Re:DOA by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Sadly that is often true. I can't remember the exact number but in the midterms, 65% of voters in my state voted party line. That is despicable.

  31. Re:I'd really love to see a woman in the White Hou by meustrus · · Score: 1

    But it's the job of government to serve all of its consituents' best interests, not to make a profit come hell or high water.

    You've got a point there, but it isn't even necessary. Mitt Romney can make a profit come hell or high water. All that Carly Fiorina can do is torpedo a successful company's profits and market share. It's reasonable (if misguided) to think that a successful CEO might have some skills that apply to political office. But Carly Fiorina is about as far from a successful CEO as you can get.

    --
    I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
  32. Re:I'd really love to see a woman in the White Hou by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    Besides, what is it with businesspeople thinking their experience automatically makes them fit to govern? .. it's the job of government to serve all of its consituents' best interests, not to make a profit come hell or high water.

    Well, to the degree to which the recognize the different roles and act accordingly, they seem to be okay.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  33. More proof by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    ...that the republicans can't get out of their own way. Completely dysfunctional.

    Alternately, it might be a testimony to the old saying that anyone truly qualified for the job wouldn't want it.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  34. Re:Baire category theorem for politics by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    In analogy with the mathematical Baire category theorem which exhaustively classifies certain topological spaces, I state the Baire political category theorem:

    There are exactly two types of political fools:
    1) those who believe Obama was a wonder turn for the better
    2) those who believe Obama was a terrible turn for the worse

    The proof is left to the reader...

    I think I understand. It's not a turn, it's continuing along the same vector at a different velocity.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  35. Doing for America by stox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What she did for HP.

    Be afraid, very afraid!

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  36. Bad Choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If Herman Cane did not win the nomination despite being:
    1) Black
    2) Running two Successful Companies
    3) Not a politician
    4) Having catchy phrases like 9-9-9.

    How can we expect a RINO with a much worse business record to win the nomination?
    All you have to do is point to what happened at HP....

    Rand Paul or Ted Cruse, 2016! :)

  37. Where's Elizondo M.D.H. Camacho? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    He knows all about wrestling and boning on camera, and has never run even one successful megacorporation into the ground. Clearly a superior candidate.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  38. Re:Against Clinton? Good luck. by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    The Republicans could put a Ham Sandwhich against Hillary and win.

    The Republicans could have put a Ham Sandwich against Obama in the last election and won.

    Unfortunately, they put up Romney, instead.

    Never underestimate their ability to steal defeat from the jaws of victory.

  39. You get the candidate you deserve. by Snufu · · Score: 1

    America is dying of political trolling.

    Then don't feed the troll.

  40. Genuine HP(tm) Bribe by Dareth · · Score: 2

    Your contribution does not appear to be a Genuine HP(tm) Bribe. This may void your warranty with your local representative.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  41. Re:Against Clinton? Good luck. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Elizabeth Warren is completely unhinged. She could be replaced with a random number generator.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  42. Couldn't run HP by jlgreer1 · · Score: 1

    She didn't do very well with HP, what makes her think she can be president. Never mind, look at the Alfred E Newman running the country now. No offense MAD Mag!

  43. She's a do-nothing - and always has been by zerofoo · · Score: 1

    She was a do-nothing at Lucent.

    She was a do-nothing at HP.

    She would be a do-nothing as President.

    Hey - maybe a President that does absolutely nothing wouldn't be a bad thing at this point.

    1. Re:She's a do-nothing - and always has been by neminem · · Score: 1

      If nothing else, it would certainly fit well with the way Congress has been running things the past couple years...

    2. Re:She's a do-nothing - and always has been by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, she wasn't a do nothing. A do nothing would have been a VAST improvement. I'm usually in favor of King Log over King Stork.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  44. Re:Baire category theorem for politics by plopez · · Score: 1

    Velocity is a vector

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  45. Re:Against Clinton? Good luck. by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

    The Republicans could put a Ham Sandwhich against Hillary and win.

    Not real sure where you are getting this. Any data I can find shows it exactly wrong. Right now, polling is showing Hillary beating any Republican put up against her. The one that does best is Romney, and the one they tried that does worst in Rand Paul. Its been this way for months, if not years.

  46. Re:Baire category theorem for politics by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Velocity is a vector

    Um, ok, I was thinking direction vector rather than Euclidean vector, but you're right, velocity has both magnitude and direction, so I was using the term incorrectly. But I couldn't bring myself to use "speed". There's probably a better way to word it. Same direction, the only difference being we'll arrive at a bad place in a different time frame.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  47. Middle East [Re:Um, what?] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I bet he's going to make the Middle East stable...

    The best way to deal with the M.E. is to bud out. Our tinkering has made it worse far more often than better. I wish the Office of the President was split into a domestic prez and a foreign policy prez.

    I'd vote Ron Paul for foreign policy prez in the heartbeat. I just don't like his domestic plans.

  48. How else to out-incompetent the last two? by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    We've had two racial flavors of dumb fucks in the last two presidents. Why not try changing the gender? That should keep 'em distracted for a while longer. And compared to Palin, Carly looks almost credible (assuming you don't look at her HP experience).

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:How else to out-incompetent the last two? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Well, businesses without regulations are allowed to murder people; and yes, I can site references.

  49. Re:Makes perfect sense by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    As contrasted with a self-serving democrat who has never run a business.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  50. Whats her slogan? by big-giant-head · · Score: 1

    Whats her slogan ? I ran HP into the dirt and I can do the same for the US ?

    No Thanks.... She makes the Plastic Man, Mitt Romney look like a good idea.

    --

    So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
  51. Re:Ego 10, skills 3 by hey! · · Score: 1

    10? I think you mean 18.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  52. Just what we need... by davydagger · · Score: 1
    another CEO in fucking congress.

    I don't have any idea why anyone would support her. Is she supposed to be "good for tech" or something. More or less, being against the intrests of the programers and users, and for the intrests of stockholders and management.

    But I for one, have had enough of business in politics.

  53. Big Brother 2.0 by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    ; if I did think that someone "official" would take note, I would click that box.

    Why bother? Do you really think that if the federal government wanted to scoop you up, they couldn't? The NSA has spent billions on their Internet Big Brother project, and has every message your IP address has sent or received cataloged. Don't delude yourself into thinking that posting AC does anything but keep your karma from being hammered when you are posting dickish comments.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  54. In a word ... No by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    This is a presidential candidate that will most likely favor mass domestic surveillance. After all, she willingly spied on her own board of directors. Please don't forget this when you go to vote against her and try to ensure her defeat.

  55. Hmm, is Mexico the US's Compaq? by engineerErrant · · Score: 1

    "This week, President Fiorina welcomed all 174 new Congressmen from the 51st State, South Texas!

    Although some have expressed concern that there are now more notorious drug lords in Congress than representatives from all New England states combined, the President emphasizes that 'together, we can realize cross-functional synergies to drive stakeholder value.'

    Unfortunately, US Treasury bonds lost 80% of their value in after-hours trading."

  56. The minus 10 billion dollar woman by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

    The market capitalization of Hewlett Packard leapt something like 10 billion dollars on the news that she had been fired. That is to say, the stock market values her at negative 10 billion dollars. If she enters the race, how long can it be until someone labels her 'the minus ten billion dollar woman', and how long can she stay in the race with that label?

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  57. A great job killer by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    With the 10's of thousands of HP jobs she happily threw overseas, giant corporations corporations she plundered, any potential opposition will have no difficulties eviscerating her based on her 'record'. She needs to give up the d illusions of political grandeur.

  58. Great by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Not content with fucking up Hewlett Packard she wants to fuck up the entire country as well.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  59. I Like Ike by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    For all you Republicans out there, there will NEVER be another Ronald Reagan.

    I find this to be rather Ironic, as RR wasn't that great of a republican leader. If people are going to idolize a former conservative president, why aim low? Ike was the last great conservative. Reagan with a numb witted twit in comparison. If you look at the republican presidents since Ike, it has been a steady slide into the gutter.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:I Like Ike by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Ike also warned of the Military Industrial alliance, something that the current power brokers have become very very comfortable with.

  60. Chainsaw Carly by Your+Average+Joe · · Score: 1

    This is the same person that destroyed HP, Compaq and DEC. She is not a hero in the IT world but a looser, why should this person run the country?

    --
    Your Average Joe
  61. Nate silver, r u listening by vpness · · Score: 1

    I need to decide if I need to register Republican - I'm neither - to vote against Carly. I'd never thought I'd be happy to vote for Hillary... Wow...

  62. Re:Republcians always shit on women by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    The Republicans had no choice but to accept the retard that the warmonger put on his ticket.

    Whoa, that's a little revisionist. When Palin was announced, Republicans were ECSTATIC. Most people were not excited about McCain, but Palin got the base energized. Until she started opening her mouth, there really was no saving her after that point.