Slashdot Mirror
Carly Is Out
MouseTheLuckyDog writes: I don't like stories that are not nerd oriented, but given Carly Fiorina's disastrous time as HP's CEO, the second only to Stephen Elop's tenure at Nokia, I think it is appropriate to announce that as of now Carly Fiorina is out of the Presidential race.
(Peasants half-heartedly shout "yay!")
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
One to go.
...good riddance you dumb whore bitch!!!
Notice what isn't on the list of "important stuff"? Carly's presidential run.
Next.
by who?
Good riddance.
terrible CEO, terrible woman, terrible human.
She was pretty much already out. It's just formal because now it's far more expensive to ride along as a candidate.
with vile posts and hateful attacks.
To quote a certain Droid: Thank the maker.
Yes, but only while running companies into the ground.
Ding dong, the witch is dead.
Again.
"This campaign was always about citizenship—taking back our country from a political class that only serves the big, the powerful, the wealthy, and the well connected. "
"Our Republican Party must fight alongside these Americans as well. We must end crony capitalism by fighting the policies that allow it to flourish."
One. OMG who is she kidding?
Two. Is Carly indirectly endorsing Trump?
Just a couple of days ago, on FNC, while protesting against being left out of that debate, she said that she's here to go all the way to Cleveland - w/ ground games in 12 states blah blah blah
What I don't get is - I understand that people have egos, but when one is running for President, one has a list of achievements behind him/her, particularly if one is an outsider. The last thing that SHE did was the debacle @ HP, and given that SINCE THEN, she's done nothing, what made her think that she's right for this job? I'm glad that she survived cancer and sympathize w/ her having to bury a step-daughter, but how does that one QUALIFY her for this job? Also, as was once noted, the only reason she's an outsider is that she lost her senate race to Barbara Boxer, or else, she'd have been like a Cruz, Rubio or a Graham running for president.
Even on policy, I'm glad she lost. She thinks that Sunni Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and the Emirates are our allies, while Russia is an adversary. She's still locked in a time warp in the 80s, if that's what she believes.
Given her speech post 9/11 about the greatness of Islam, I hope the next president, if it's Trump, makes her an ambassador to one of our Muslim 'allies' whom she's touted in her campaign, and where as HP CEO, she turned a blind eye to dealings w/ Iran. I think the UAE is ideal - it's an 'ally', is neck deep in ties to Iran, so is an ideal place to send Carly.
Sounds like just the ticket America needs. But not me, I'm voting Camacho.
Im glad to here this annoying bitch gave up. Let her finally be forgotten. captcha: deposed.
You ruined HP and you wanted to ruin America as well. Good riddance you ugly whore.
Your comment is off-topic.
She is not out, she just "suspends" her campain (much like she just "suspended" the jobs at HP)...
Good riddance, please, let the door hit you as hard as possible, or at least hard enough to never to appear in public light again...
Sorry I don't make it a habit to remember everyone who makes poor decisions out there.
Glad to hear you gave up trying to destroy America like you did HP. See ya later you fucking whore.
If you would vote for a Socialist, the Republican party is not for you and you shouldn't be looking there in the first place. Like I know that the things I support in politics are alien to the Democrat party, so I ignore much of what goes on over that side. Looking for even Social Democrats in the GOP is like looking for sharks in a landlocked state like Vermont
Glad to hear you lost, carly. Go fuck off now
Squirt what? Drywall compound?
The witch is dead.
For those who don't get the reference:
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/ne...
To deprive the United States of the same kind of leadership she offered while she was at HP is a true American tragedy.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
We might as well just start referring to him as President Trump, instead of Donald Trump.
It's clear at this point that he has already won the election.
Most sensible Republicans already supported him. Those that didn't support him initially are starting to now, because he's the only Republican candidate who has shown real leadership abilities so far.
The Democrats aren't putting up anything resembling competition.
Despite a lot of baseless ridicule from a small number of very loud leftists, Americans as a whole are starting to realize that President Trump is the right choice. He's the only one presenting real ideas. He isn't talking about vague "change we can believe in". He's proposing plausible ways of dealing with real problems.
The next president of the United States will be President Trump.
... if she had made a pull request under a gender-neutral psuedonym she would've had a better chance of success.
when you need it?
MouseTheLuckyDog writes:
If I were a betting man, I would wager that Carly Fiorina's dog is named "Mouse."
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Carly was never a serious contender. She was only making the rounds to promote her brand.
Really, the GOP has no hope for the big seat this term and we've known that for a high degree of statistical certainty for a good two years now.
This is the main the reason the GOP primary has been such a clown car for such a long lead up to the actual primary dates. It's good exposure. These guys have been all over the news since January last year. They've got nothing to lose so it's been all pandering and bluster. The only thing the GOP is legitimately worried about is maneuvering for down ticket races.
You ruin companies, now you're a fucking quitter. Go home nestle up with your millions and be forgotten you stupid bitch
You've spent too much time snorting heroin in NH. Trump won both IA and NH - got a moral victory in IA (thanks to Cruz stealing Carson's votes) and a landslide victory last night. He will be the GOP nominee, and will only lose if Dems rob Sanders of the nomination
Sorry, I meant 'will only win if Dems rob Sanders of the nomination. Or if Bloomberg enters the race and splits the Democrats.
Nothing about Fiorina leads me to believe she is "dumb". As far as I can tell, she's both wealthy, was made the CEO of a major corporation, and had enough support to run for two offices. Despite the fact that they were both unsuccessful attempts, they likely have not hurt her in the slightest and is significantly closer than 99.9% of America has ever come to the Presidency.
Now if you were to say that she was a bad manager, selfish, incapable and just a very bad selection as a leader, I'd agree with you. But never confuse that with someone being "dumb". That's the mistake people make before they find themselves underestimating the person they are talking about and then being run over.
This person lied to the world during her shining moment. She took her moment in the national/world spotlight to spout off about cheap internet lies about abortion. She literally helped make the world a dumber, less informed place. Thanks for nothing, Carly. If there's a hell, you may end up rotting in it.
* Do not post as Anonymous Coward if you want to be take at all seriously.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Naah, Trump said today to Cavuto that he'd probably pick a politician, since he'd need political skills dealing w/ Congress. If he picks one of those who've dropped out of the race, it'd more likely be someone who was friendly to him during the campaign. Maybe a Rubio or a Christie. I think that Trump by now has a big enmity w/ Jeb & Graham, and is unlikely to pick dropouts like Perry, Santorum, Jindal or Patakis.
Trump will have an uphill battle to get the nomination, and his election is nearly impossible, but nothing about winning the primary has put him much closer to ending his bid. Christie and Carson are next to go. Bush has enough PAC money to hold on, and Rubio is trying to become the anti-Trump. Cruz, of course, is far from out, either.
Kaisch is the only guy I am truly surprised about, and I'm happy to see him actually make a showing. Unfortunately, it still seems pretty stacked against him.
From the start, I always thought she was awful in all the roles she served. Maybe she'd make a good whore. Next role, carly?
Just clearing the field for The Donald to make America great again!
He has to be the president-elect first, at least. If the Dems don't block Bernie from getting the nomination, Trump can be defeated
She was never really in the race to begin with. it is a common tactic during the early stages of an election to front a "mudslinging" candidate. Essentially a blood hound to attack the parties opponents in underhanded ways that would normally not be acceptable for a more mainstream candidate. After primaries start to reveal a party front runner the mudslinger backs out to avoid splitting the vote.
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
Those contributing that to the discussion sound like twisted little 14 year old boys trying to get the cred to join their neighborhood "hang out smoking outside the 7-11" gang.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
But the potty comments by any other name smell as shitty.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
The only thing she managed to do during her time was to inspire that crazy shooter guy to shoot up a planned parenthood.
What was she smoking that made her hallucinate a planned parenthood video where a fetus was having its brain harvested? That's right up there with Bachman's "Vaccines cause Autism" statement.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
trump independent can lead to no one getting the needed 270.
All the work and time on the campaign trail, she missed swallowing down sweet jizz. You slutty bitch, Carly
There are no rules anywhere. The Goddess prevails
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
[...] given that SINCE THEN, she's done nothing, what made her think that she's right for this job?
Your mistake here is using logic and reason. If you throw those out the window and use a Magic Eight Ball(tm) for your answers you're more likely to understand things.
I think he will trigger a convention fight if he maintains his 33% over all primaries, but the party brass will be considering their options to deal with him. There will be epic backroom deals on this one, but I don't see Trump walking out of the convention as the nominee unless he improves his primary showings to over 50%.
And at that point, I will start worrying about the future of this country in a way that I have previously not been worried before.
I have nothing insightful to say, but I do have something factual to say: Carly was a dumb bitch.
Being able to win the Republican primary and being able to beat the Democrats in the general election are two very different things. Ironically, being better at the first these days means you're worse at the second.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
I don't think he has enough to stop the Democratic candidate unless Sanders wins and the Republican is particularly strong.
If Clinton takes the nomination, Trump is just going to ensure that the Republicans have zero chance, as opposed to a slight chance this year.
You might be right, I hope so. A solution assumes that sufficient candidates drop out, though. Two or three reasonable candidates may split the reasonable vote all the way to the end. Cruz and Rubio are similar enough that they could stay in to the end and have 40% for Trump, 60% of voters who'd prefer EITHER Cruz or Rubio. In which case Trump wins the nomination, even though 60% wouldn't have picked him in any two-way race.
Trump has been loud enough that everyone either likes him or doesn't, by now. Not a lot of people are going to change (much like Ron Paul was). I don't like him all, but I'm not sure which of the other candidates I'd choose yet. Except for Rubio's stance on domestic surveillance, I could easily vote either Rubio or Cruz, and Kasich may be okay (I haven't checked him out much).
Trump is winning out because the saner vote is still split.
Saner vote?
Stop insulting us and start addressing the issues. Insulting people is the sure way to get them to dig in their heels.
Trump is winning because the people want him.
In fact, the only ones who don't like Trump are the elites: talking heads, mainstream media, big corporations, and so on. The "establishment". The Republican side is starting to be completely open in their dislike for him.
The Koch brothers started a super pac specifically to combat Trump. A direct quote from Charles Koch about the Republican primary:
"You’d think we could have more influence"
Here on Slashdot, for the last 16 years we've bemoaned the corruption in politics, how campaign money from corporate interests gives us politicians who are for corporations and against the people.
And when someone who runs without taking money from corporations, their response is: "Anyone except HIM!!!"
(A relevant recent political cartoon)
The current hate dejour is "he's not very presidential". As if leading us into war under false pretenses, ordering an American killed using a secret law, or lying about having sex in the oval office is completely unimportant.
Really.
If this keeps up, we're going to get the president we deserve, not the president we need.
trump independent can lead to no one getting the needed 270.
That would be fine too, since the House would then elect the POTUS from the three top candidates with one vote per state delegation.
The House isn't going to elect Trump, but they did elect Jefferson over Burr in 1800.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
But Carly's snatch? No way never not with a 10-foot pole. Dat bitch has probably got all sorts o diseases from all her gangbangs at HP. captcha: tightens
It's actually just a pretext for her to spend more time with her family.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
The goddess has a penis... Nothing is sacred.
What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?
If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.
Since when was Caitlin Jenner considered a goddess?
Ted cruz birth issues can throw a monkey wrench in to the works and the timing can have it be a small thing or a 2000 like issue with the supreme court picking the president or making it a very messy thing.
Except for Rubio's stance on domestic surveillance, I could easily vote either Rubio
I feel like the most recent debate did a good job revealing Rubio for who he is......a smooth campaigner with little actual experience. All the governors on the stage managed to have good, substance filled answers to various questions, but his didn't seem to have as much clarity behind them.
For example, here are the things people said (paraphrased):
Kasich - we need to help people with heroin addictions, and here is my plan to do it
Christy - we need to help people with heroin addictions, here is my plan, and I know it works because it worked in New Jersey.
Bush - we need to give more power to the states, and we're going to shift funding for schools, highways, and healthcare to the states.
Rubio - we shouldn't be focused on the rich, we should be focused on making more millionaires.
Can you see the difference? While Rubio's idea sounds great and is a fine philosophy, there isn't an obvious way to achieve it, and he didn't present a plan to do so. He's still at the philosophy stage, whereas the other three were at the practical implementation stage.
And Trump was just there putting on a show. Rhetoric FTW.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Not that I believe for a second that, republicans will make her *The Candidate*, but again lately, it is hard to know what passes as a candidate. Look at the clown with fake hair and fake tan and god only knows what else is fake, is the forerunner in the bunch. The other, even though being highly educated, still being a bigot, saying he doesn't trust a Muslim to be the president, god only knows who will be the conservative candidate at the election time. I was hoping for Rand Paul, but, unfortunately, common sense is not so common. He was one of the first ones to throw in the towel. God help USA, under the circumstances.
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
Hmm...come to think of it, in this context that's a rather ambiguous statement.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=There+are...
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
He has to be the president-elect first, at least. If the Dems don't block Bernie from getting the nomination, Trump can be defeated
If the contest ends up being Trump vs. Clinton, my vote is automatic Trump, without a second thought.
If the contest ends up being Trump vs. Sanders, I'll give it a lot of thought and listen a lot before making up my mind.
I have never voted democrat in my life. Sanders would at least get my attention and I'd want to hear a lot more details on how and what he'd really do.
Fnord.
Remember when her and Meg Whittman tried to Buy california?
what a blunder (F*cK) that was..
to put it blunt, she needed a tax writeoff/ a business loss/ something to do..
You can only push around some people some times, and when they get tired of your BS they move on, But carly lets face it, Your're stuck with your self, to which you see every day when you wake up and pose in the unbreakable mirror..
carly, your behavior, motives, and intentions are all too transparent..
Instead of playing the sophomoric games, why not donate some of your excessive fortune to a worthy cause..
Best wishes carly, on to your next Tom_foolary event..
I don't like stories that are not nerd oriented, but given Carly Fiorina's disastrous time as HP's CEO [...]
Stop. Don't feel you have to find a tech connection to be able to discuss US political elections. No matter the outcome, the results will have an enormous impact on all those in the tech industry, so I don't see the harm in posting the occasional politics story for discussion on Slashdot once every few days.
I find it more annoying the need to find a tech angle, even if it's obscure or tangential sometimes, to be able to post political stories that people are clearly eager to discuss here.
Now would you fucking fire timothy for fucks sake, he's god damn worthless in every way.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The media has been pushing Kaisch pretty hard, despite having practically zero support outside of NH (and Ohio). That's not the decked being stacked against someone, it's quite the opposite.
Nope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zl_ke85HqII
What if it was Trump vs Bloomberg vs Sanders?
I think you are casting aspersions on women generally. If your post was reworded replacing "women" with "conservative", I expect you'd think it was casting aspersions on conservatives generally, e.g.
This is what happens when you give a dumb, emotional conservative the reigns. I'm not saying all conservatives are like this (please don't burn me at the stake, RepubliNazis). I'm just saying she was a dumb conservative who sucked at business management. Dumb liberals can be bad leaders too (again, for clarification to all RepubliNazis).
Normally, yes. Like Ted Cruz would be pretty good at the first, but horrible at the second. While a John Kasich would be pretty good at the second, but horrible at the first.
However, w/ Trump, those dynamics don't apply. In the Primaries, he has tremendous appeal to Evangelicals, despite his past pro-Choice stances, despite the fact that he cheated on Ivana, despite him posing weirdly w/ his daughter Ivanka. Had any other GOP candidate w/ Trump's personal history - sans the name and the ownership of the Trump empire - stood in the primaries, he'd have been steamrolled by Cruz or Carson. Now, none of these things - having a pro Choice past, cheating on Ivana - would count against him in the general election, so he'd still hold his own. And he can be more himself - wouldn't have to talk about his favorite bible verses in the general election.
He has a wife named Ivana, too? Geez that's not Freudian at all. Ivana, Ivanka...I don't suppose his mother is an Iva?
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Her face needed a toner refill anyway.
Anybody want a peanut?
If the contest ends up being Trump vs. Clinton, my vote is automatic Trump, without a second thought.
But how do you know Trump is a good candidate if so far he hasn't proposed a single policy, good or bad. And no, saying, I would go and talk to Putin and get along is not a policy proposal, neither is claiming that Mexico would pay for the wall without explaining how would this come about... I might as well claim you are going to pay my mortgage and solve my debt problems.
If the contest ends up being Trump vs. Clinton, my vote is automatic Trump, without a second thought.
If the contest ends up being Trump vs. Sanders, I'll give it a lot of thought and listen a lot before making up my mind.
I have never voted democrat in my life. Sanders would at least get my attention and I'd want to hear a lot more details on how and what he'd really do.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've said you lived in Texas in some of your other posts.
Assuming you do intend to vote there, then I give not a shit who you vote for in the Presidential election, or the primaries, because that state will go Republican if a resurrected Sam Houston comes back and puts a D next to his name when running for President.
Don't feel bad, I'm also in a state where my vote does not matter due to my neighbors and the gerrymandering of the state legislature.
She was able to climb through middle management and be elected as CEO. People see the big failures (leader, visionary, economic realist) and forget her small successes (sales, administration, social climbing). She got so far because technical expertise, making the right decision, is a minor factor in upper management. That allows her (and the many other ineffective upper managers) to find another job where brand recognition (her name) is more valuable than her actual performance. It happens because mediocre corporations (they can't all be great) buy celebrity managers in the hope their celebrity status will lead the corporation to greatness. The only question is why so many corporations make the same mistake?
This campaign was always about citizenship—taking back our country from a political class that only serves the big, the powerful, the wealthy, and the well connected.
So she was running against herself the whole time. Who knew?
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
I've proposed the following on /. before.
Here's my (very abbreviated) plan to overhall the US presidential election system.
* The primaries become an official part of the constitutional system. Anybody who wants to be on the presidential ballot needs to get some threshold number/proportion of votes in the primaries. The threshold is set such that there will be about 3 to 6 candidates.
* The presidential vote is done by preferential voting with a Condorcet voting system.
The big benefits:
The Condorcet voting will tend to elect compromise candidates, whereas the current primary system means you don't get to be a candidate unless you're extremist (at least for one of the main parties in the current climate.)
Because of preferential voting, each side of politics can put up more than one candidate without fear of losing by 'splitting the vote'.
More choice, without bloating the ballot unmanageably.
All candidates on the ballot have legitimacy through the primary system, so (hopefully) presidential candidate debates won't ignore the 'minor' candidates.
It allows for candidates to differ on more axes than just left vs right.
No more electoral college. Everyone's vote counts the same, whatever state they are in.
However, I am not a US citizen or resident.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
You are aware that in head-to-head polls Sanders defeats Trump, but Trump defeats Clinton, yes?
I'm glad she's out of the race but you realize Fiorina is the only candidate you refer to by first name.
Maybe you should look at yourself and decide why.
suppose you were a conservative woman, and dumb. but I repeat myself
(apologies to Mark Twain!)
Yeah, yeah, I know, but be fair. Carly Fiorina's presidential run is not "news for nerds". Carly Fiorina crashing and burning in any capacity, however, is.
It's kind of like "Steve Jobs bought a yacht" isn't news for nerds, but "Steve Jobs died because he thought woo-woo was better than actual medicine" is. Many of us enjoy schadenfreude if it's people we collectively dislike.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I've taken the trouble to collect the following incisive valid criticisms of this candidate from slashdot posts on this topic:
"I was tired of seeing her cunt face on TV"
"See ya later you fucking whore."
"She missed sucking cocks"
"All the work and time on the campaign trail, she missed swallowing down sweet jizz. You slutty bitch, Carly"
"Carly is a Dumb Bitch"
"But Carly's snatch? No way never not with a 10-foot pole. Dat bitch has probably got all sorts o diseases from all her gangbangs at HP. captcha: tightens"
"Can carly's pussy squirt?"
"you stupid bitch"
"I never liked that bitch"
"Maybe she'd make a good whore. Next role, carly?"
"...good riddance you dumb whore bitch!!!"
"See ya later dumb bitch"
"Good riddance you ugly whore."
"...soulless bitch Go fuck off now"
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
...I will continue to travel this country and fight for those Americans...
When has she ever done that? Seriously. All she's done is raise funds for unsuccessful runs for office since she left HP. When did she ever fight for Americans that weren't her?
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
If it was Trump versus Anyone, I'd have to vote for Anyone. As bad as Hillary could be, Trump would be far worse. One could manage the four years until the next election with Hillary or Bernie. But not with Trump, and probably not with Cruz.
I was thinking about this, as a member of no political party, that you could have a third party easily forming in this race that could gain voters from the middle. We've got a bell curve of voters, but the parties are focusing on the extremes. At least during the primaries, they'll all pretend to be centrists again in the general election. But what if Kasich+Bush decided to run as a third party and grab the center? Better if it was Republican+Democrat so that they wouldn't be accused of "stealing" or "spoiling" the election like Nader or Perot were accused of doing.
I've voted for Democrats and Republicans in the past. I think that party loyalty is a vice.
> But how do you know Trump is a good candidate if so far he hasn't proposed a single policy, good or bad.
Then go look at https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p...
You get more money, but never see it because it goes to pay union dues. Crazy hostility soon puts the employer out of business or makes them say "fuck it, we're outsourcing to China".
Having one party in the Presidency and a different party in Vice Presidency could be a load of laughs.
We've had situations like that in California, where our governor is elected separately from the lieutenant governor. When the governor would leave the state, the lieutenant governor would undermine him at every opportunity.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
Carly is a woman of singular achievements. To become the single most reviled person in an industry that includes Larry Ellison, Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs requires a level of dedication to details that few of us can even aspire to, much less attain.
Did you even read the items in the page you sent? Number one is:
The most important component of our China policy is leadership and strength at the negotiating table.
This is not a policy proposal. It's empty bluster.
It also repeats the claim that Mexico will pay for the wall, with no indication of how this is to come about. Just like I indicated. Seriously, read the page you sent again.
It's not that Trump is wrong, it's that he hasn't even made an actual proposal we can evaluate.
Carly of HP No Compaq with the devil Could save this campaign
"reins", not "reigns". Thank you.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Unless you are in the top 0.1%, any vote for a Republican candidate is a vote against your own interest. Even if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, you can still write in Bernie Sanders' name. It's not a wasted vote: its a statement of support that may affect future politics.
On Trump: do you really think that waterboarding is a good idea? Do you think that torture actually gets real information? Do you think that torturing people (many of whom were innocent) helps to advance the USA's interests? The reason that I focus on that is that it is one of the few statements that Trump actually made that is a prediction of specific action, not a general goal ("make America great again").
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Let me do to the US what I did to HP
- That was a really bad choice for a campaign slogan.
Being able to win the Republican primary and being able to beat the Democrats in the general election are two very different things. Ironically, being better at the first these days means you're worse at the second.
Lack of voter participation in the primaries really matters. You have to appeal to the extremes in a primary because they're the ones who turn out. Then for a general election, you have to shift more towards the middle, or at least appear to.
Ivana was his first wife, and Ivanka was the daughter he had from her. The 3 adult kids who you see on the campaign trail campaigning for him - Don, Ivanka and Eric - are his kids from Ivana. He has another daughter Tiffany from his second wife Marla, and another son Baron from his current wife Melania
I said back in July that no one could beat Trump (something he said). No one thought he would win a single state, or even get 5% back then. I'm sticking to my original statement. For those that think he can't beat Hillary or Sanders, you are oh so wrong. I know EXACTLY how he will beat either of them, easily. It will be funny as hell to watch him completely destroy the Clintons, both of them. I'm pretty sure Hillary will be in jail, and suspect Bill will be in jail next to Cosby. Its over for Hillary and she knows it. I actually HOPE they don't put her in jail so EVERYONE can see there is two sets of laws and Trump will pound that fact into the public and get even more votes. Imagine an Obama pardon for her illegal activities, and then imagine Trump pounding that tent peg like he did with Cruz being born in Canada. She couldn't possibly win after that.
Its not a question of if Trump will win. Its a question of can he take 40+ states from Hillary. My money is on 47+ states for Trump. Trump will bring NY and NJ back to the GOP for a generation. If the GOP refuses to let Trump get nomination after he gets more votes than anyone else, the GOP is over.
Bush spent $25k per vote in Iowa and lost big, he spent $35M in NH and came in distant 4th. There isn't enough PAC money to elect Bush, period.
Nuff said
What do you think of a Trump/Sanders Oval Office?
If the contest ends up being Trump vs. Clinton, my vote is automatic Trump, without a second thought.
As a foreigner looking from the outside, the Republicans don't seem to have a viable candidate. They're all extremists which garner a certain level of support during the primaries, but come the main race, the overall vote tends for moderation.
Clinton will beat any Republican because she'll convince enough people that she's not a nutbag. Regardless of her shady past or her policies, this is generally how elections are won (Obama, Bush, Clinton etc, all positioned themselves as the less-crazy option). Trump might have a half a chance if he could reel in his ego, but that will be his undoing.
I'd like to see Sanders get in, but don't think America is mature enough for him. That means it'll probably be Clinton v Trump with Clinton pissing it in.
Unless you are in the top 0.1%, any vote for a Republican candidate is a vote against your own interest.
It isn't that black and white... Republicans are at least *more likely* than Democrats to be willing to protect my gun rights.
Not as much as they should, but more likely...
Even if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, you can still write in Bernie Sanders' name. It's not a wasted vote: its a statement of support that may affect future politics.
It is a wasted vote if it means that she gets in and Trump doesn't... If she would have won anyway, then it isn't, but if it costs him the election, then it would be a terrible idea.
And thus the problem we have, with how our elections work, which aren't remotely modern or fair.
Years ago, they added politics to Slashdot. People didn't like it. Yet, they recently asked what folks wanted to do to improve Slashdot. A number of people said to get rid of the politics. And yet, here were are...
Don't misread that. I mean, here we are not just with politics but with a whole bunch of comments. Politics stories tend to get a lot of comments. For better or worse, people seem to like 'em, or at least seem happy to talk about it. Not that the discussion is productive... It does indicate that, to some at least, it might be important.
That and, well... This lady was a CEO of HP at one time. Not a very good CEO but still, she was the CEO. So, the only conclusion I can come to is that a whole bunch of people see this as important stuff.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Fuck off. This is /. Not some fucking lame ass forum. Carlyle never had a chance in hell. I personally could have posted a single 30 second YouTube video and shared it with 1 person and would have had more support than that useless excuse of a human being. He'll I would have had a better chance than anyone who has already dropped out. Sorry forgotten all of their names already. As well as Bush, Rubio and that clueless nitwit Carson (sorry Benny but a 3rd grader is more qualified to be president than you are)
Fuck you.
People don't have gun rights if they cannot afford guns. The biggest issue in the USA right now is income inequality. It's getting worse and a vote for the Republicans is a vote to make it worse. Furthermore, historical data suggests that increasing income inequality is associated with lower overall growth, so it's not just a rich vs. poor issue. Another thing that the Republicans would like to do is to starve the agencies that should protect the citizens and the environment, so that the laws granting protections to citizens and the laws protecting the environment don't matter. Do you want to live in a polluted country? Or a country where you cannot enforce your rights? Because that's what a vote for the Republicans means.
Finally, do you really think that your right to own a gun is more important than providing universal heathcare?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
But what if Kasich+Bush decided to run as a third party and grab the center?
That has less than zero chance of happening, Bush is deep into the establishment, that is his source of money.
Hillary is more likely to take away more of your rights than Trump is. Trump might do it anyway, but at least he has a chance. You have no chance with her.
I consider myself to be a US national politics nerd. I follow this stuff daily. There's more to being a nerd than generating electricity from trees or arguing over whether Han shot first.
Love sees no species.
I'd like to see Sanders get in, but don't think America is mature enough for him.
The implication of your statement is... disturbing... it also calls into question your other statements because what you're REALLY saying is:
"Americans are immature and stupid and can't be trusted to be smart".
Yea, thanks, we only saved the world twice in the past 100 years, thank you very much...
What about it?
But how do you know Trump is a good candidate if so far he hasn't proposed a single policy, good or bad.
By that standard, neither has anyone else in the race, on either side.
Listen to Clinton's speech after NH, it is full of the same sort of general "I'll fight for you" platitudes that mean nothing.
At least Trump has actually said something:
1. I'll build a wall.
2. I'll kick out the illegals.
3. I'll ban Muslim immigration.
Now you might agree or disagree with those, but at least those are specific things. As for paying for the wall, yes, actually he HAS said how he would get them to do it, but most people (including the media) don't want to hear it because it isn't politically correct to say it.
In short, it may appear that Mexico and The United States of America have each other over a barrel... but it just appears that way... They are far more dependent on us and NAFTA than we are of them. But it takes a leader with some actual leadership skills (along with a really big pair of Cojones) to meet with the President of Mexico and put it like this:
"One way or another, the wall is going to be built. It can be built where the border stands now, it can be built 50 miles further into Mexico to provide a secure buffer for America, patrolled by the 1st armored division.
It can be built together as a team with join US/Mexican forces patrolling it, or alone with America doing it... but one way or another, it will be built.
Now, which would you like, lube or no lube?"
That is a very crass way of putting it, but in the end, this is not a contest of equals.
This is /., yes. You do realize these are the rules posted by slashdot?? despite being spammed by AC
Finally, do you really think that your right to own a gun is more important than providing universal heathcare?
Yes... without a doubt, it is...
Now you might not agree, and that's ok, you have the right to disagree with me, and I with you... but to answer the question, yes it is...
Remind me where in the bill of rights it mentions health care. Remind me how you'll keep that healthcare as soon as you elect the "wrong person" in 20 or 40 years?
What rights will she take? Trump has already stated he'll institute torture ("beyond waterboarding"), which his fans don't care about because they'll be suspected terrorists and thus not allowed to have rights. He wants to ban people from entering the US solely based upon their religion which infringes on rights, but his fans will say that rights don't apply to people outside of the US.
Bigger problem with Trump is that he has no real plans. He is obviously winging it and making shit up as he goes. If he gets in the white house he'll get bored of this game quickly and all the work it involves and delegate to interns. His tax plan severely cuts taxes with no way to make up the shortfall which will destroy the economy. All the talk about "on day one I will do this..." is proof he doesn't how how things work. The only reason he's running as a Republican is because that's where the angry voters are, but I don't think he has any real thought out political views of his own. Repealing Obamacare will be a massive disaster leaving millions without any way to pay for health care; you can't roll back the clock on this one quickly you would have to undo it in stages or you'll strip the gears.
Clinton on the other hand is pretty mainstream center-left, very similar to Obama. She is not an extremist, same as Obama. Obama never took any rights away, and Clinton will be similar. She's going to have much the same views as Bill had, maybe with some realization of past mistakes (like the crime bill turning out badly). Overall she'll be pretty bland I suspect. She won't get anything done in her term because of intransigence in congress. No disasters, but no improvements either, a four year holding period.
Democrats won in 1992 because Bill Clinton veered to the center (maybe with some help from Perot). Republicans could win easily in 2016 if they moved to the center instead of catering to the crazy wing.
Oh, wait, you mean out as "she dropped out of the Presidential race"; not out as "she publically declared that she is a lesbian".
Never mind, carry on.
By /. or their new corporate sellout overlord idiots? Though I guess they are one and the same. They should change the name as this isn't /. any longer. Really hasn't been for years but the vibe has changed pretty dramatically recently. I'm sure AC posting will come to an end in the next few months or by the end of the year at most. Its already more useless than most news sites as I've read 50% of the "articles" of late on CNN and other real news sites days ago
Just because it's not in the Bill of Rights does not make healthcare any less important. When you are in hospital with a life-threatening illness or injury, is your right to own a gun really more important?
Remind me how you will buy a gun when the 0.1%-ers have tilted the economic field so far in their direction that you don't have spare money to buy a gun.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
She is not an extremist, same as Obama.
Ha! You keep thinking that. :)
Obama never took any rights away
Not because he didn't want to...
She won't get anything done in her term because of intransigence in congress. No disasters, but no improvements either, a four year holding period.
Oh, THAT is what we should all be hoping for... That is your great hope and change?
Clinton is evil, why can't you see it?
Just because it's not in the Bill of Rights does not make healthcare any less important.
I'm sorry you think that...
Let me try and make this plain as day.
You do not have the right to healthcare, but you do have the right to defend yourself.
Now before you type a reply to that, stop, and read it again.
"Americans are immature and stupid and can't be trusted to be smart".
Well to be fair a good chunk of the population are.
Yea, thanks, we only saved the world twice in the past 100 years, thank you very much...
Point proven.
Gandhi, Mandala, and the Dali Llama, 3 libertarian socialists who have accomplished more then any right wing libertarian.
Dalai Lama has achieved squat!!! His country is still under Chinese occupation, and all he has managed to do is give a Mahayana Buddhist halo to Liberal appeasement philosophies.
Mandela was a thug!!! I know it's not PC to describe him as that, since he's the saint of the Black SJW world. But his party was very much a terror organization in its heyday, and his wife Winnie practiced necklacing - putting burning tires around political opponents. Only frauds from the third world lionize him as a champion of liberty.
Gandhi was another champion appeaser - wanted to appease the Muslims to no end, and even supported a Caliphate after WWI. He was fine w/ Hindus dying, but absolutely opposed to Muslims being killed. The guy who assassinated him did a great service to not just Hindus but India as well - Gandhi blackmailed India into paying the cost of refugee displacement to Pakistan, even though there were refugees flowing in both directions. In short, Gandhi was a cunt who deserved to be assassinated, or else, countless more Indians would have died.
While I have my differences w/ Ayn Rand or Ron Paul or Rand Paul, I'll take them anyday over any of the 3 that you listed above
Then perhaps you should read the second page, not just the first page. Absolute 2nd Amendment rights is a policy. So are the three front page synopses, and the suggested policies with them, that are based on old-fashioned isolationism. I agree that much of it is empty bluster, but that's been a great deal of Donald Trump's professional career. He's bankrupted companies to his personal benefit 4 times. Empty, even destructive bluster seems to be the core of his fiscal history and proposed policies.
Who would you tend towards b/w those 3? That is, Trump & Sanders are in the race, and Bloomberg makes an independent bid?
Republicans veered to the center in 1996 w/ Bob Dole, and 2008 w/ John McCain. Hey, they even did that w/ Bush 43. W/ Bush 43, there was Clinton fatigue the first time, which is the only reason it worked, but on the other 2 occasions w/ Dole & McCain, the veering to the center cost them. In fact, if Bernie is the candidate, the Dems will WIN in a landslide, since most Americans now believe that Socialism can be a utopia, having never lived thru it
Clinton's message is "It's our (women's) turn", which is just another way to say "It's my turn". Sander's message is "Free _____". Trump's message is "Make America great again". That's the reason Sanders & Trump are winning
Years ago, they added politics to Slashdot. People didn't like it. Yet, they recently asked what folks wanted to do to improve Slashdot. A number of people said to get rid of the politics. And yet, here were are...
You can setup your Slashdot settings to filter out any stories that are under Politics category. Everybody wins.
Except Bernie isn't about the commie socialism, but democratic socialism that is in use in some states in Europe with better standards of living than the US.
Bloomberg isn't an option, he favors very strict gun control.
I'm willing to listen to both Sanders and Trump, there are a few issues that I'm willing to be flexible on. Taxes for example.
Gun control is not one of them. To me, it is the same as a politician wanting to restrict and licence "freedom of speech".
Exactly, being a bad manager, selfish and a bad leader, and still making it to CEO of HP tells me she must be pretty smart.
There are no birth issues. It's a false claim. His mother is a US citizen by birth, and had met residency requirements before his birth. By standing law and long time precedence he is therefore a citizen by birth, regardless of location of his birth.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
All evidence is that Carson benefited if anything, as he polled higher in IA than was expected. And Cruz didn't steal anything, some of his staffers passed on the CNN Report as a reason to suggest Carson supporters might want to switch to Cruz, but since he didn't actually withdraw, and he got more votes than expected, the false claims of wrong doing fail on every count.
Well, that's probably a good thing. Could you imagine Carly's Tax Code ?
"You only pay 1% in income tax. But you have to file monthly returns with a 50%-of-your-income filing fee".
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
While all candidates spout platitudes, the big difference with most others is that they have a record to stand on. In fact, if they were to say something radically different than what they've done we would doubt them, such as Rubio's newly found anti-immigration position.
With Trump is different. We have no clue what he stands on, and "I'm going to bully the world to do what I want" is a play yard tantrum, not realistic policy, in spite of what you write above.
Lastly, the problem with immigration can be solved in an instant if you really want to: put strong penalties on employers for hiring illegal immigrants. It was tried for a year during the Reagan administration and it was highly effective. This is how all other countries on earth do it. The reason it is not done in the USA is because it businesses need illegal workers to cover the bottom end of the spectrum. So you can do this bluster about a wall, which impresses simpletons, or you can propose an actual solution and then you have the entire business lobby against you.
I wish I could be there when Carly discovers that you don't always get paid big bucks to go away...
Meh, they give me something to read but I don't think I've ever noticed that option in the settings. So, thanks! I'll leave it where it is. I'm not one of the ones who complained about it and I do think that some of the things we call politics has a potential to impact the tech sector so it's all good for me. And something new to read is usually appreciated. I think the people who don't want the politics are actually in the minority. They're just a vocal minority.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Wow, her lack of charisma was her undoing, not her terrible decision-making. Can't anyone get past THAT FACE?
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
What a lot of people don't get, is that a really low minimum wage is essentially a subsidy for corporations. Those that don't make enough money to live, use government assistance, which *you* the tax payer pay for. Where does that money go? To the profit of the corporation, and typically to the wealthiest people out there. Pay a living wage, not only does that money go direct to the most vulnerable people, but also less government assistance is required, less governmental staff to run the programs, etc...
*YOU* the taxpayer are paying no matter which way to slice it. It all depends if you would rather have your tax dollars going to some billionaire and having to pay to administer a larger governmental social assistance program through taxes or having to pay a bit more for your coffee etc...
Not to mention all the horrible spin-offs that crushing poverty has on society such as crime, lack of education, poor health, etc...
It doesn't really matter who was in charge at HP after the founders left and the era of bottomless government spending on Cold War technology ended. The place was in trouble, and big changes were warranted.
All the boomers who had hunkered down in the back labs of HP and thought they had permanent jobs because they worked at a company headed by engineers had a day of reckoning.
It doesn't matter who was in charge. HP was headed down because nobody needed expensive instruments with their circuit boards gold plated "just because it's HP" anymore. I love all that cool old gear but am glad my taxes aren't paying for it anymore.
Carly isn't to blame, although, obviously she is popular to blame.
Why don't you stop and read the whole list of Amendments?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Your request is granted, unless of course, you have a substantial argument against healthcare.
And yes, that actual right is recognized in the common law.
Stop, and think about it.
Yes, but I think the polls at this point of the game are a crock of shit.
Sanders is more genuine and all of that, but I think Clinton has the better long game. She has the machine to win a national election easily and she will have no trouble uniting the Democratic base against Trump. So, Trump will not beat Clinton.
Mind you, I don't think he will beat Sanders either, but I think it will be closer because Sanders' campaign hasn't been in a real bowl game before, as it were. And if it is closer, then the Republicans will mess things up with any reasonable candidate.
The only sure losers in this election are the establishment Republicans unless they cut the shit and find someone who isn't a robot or a moron to elect. I'm thinking their only real chance at taking on someone like Clinton or Sanders in a national election by picking up Independents is Kaisch, and he's not going to have the allegiance of the crazies that Trump has, so he's going to have severe trouble even getting a nomination.
Rubio might get the nomination, but he seriously needs to up his game. And if he keeps up the Mr. Roboto act, he's going to be "designated loser".
Bush... I was unenthusiastic about Bush the Third to begin with, and despite his deeper war chest, he's a dead letter unless something surprising happens. Which is almost good, since I am nearly certain that Bush would even lose the national election against a wet paper bag that had the Democratic party logo on it. He'd get 45% of the vote and never have a chance at a single vote more unless Hillary Clinton dropped her disguise and revealed that she's actually a robot Adolf Hitler. (I'd have said The Devil, but I doubt that most Democrats actually believe there is a devil any more).
Great point. It almost begs the question, was the board fully aware of the tsunsmi headed their way, and picked Carly Fiorina as their scapegoat for the inevitable crash & burn? Not a huge Carly fan - I didn't like her before the presidential campaign, and like her even less now - in fact I found her more scarily fascistic than Trump - but it strikes me that in the context of the HP disaster, she could have been set up from the start. (Hmm. Maybe the board didn't like her either?)
With Trump is different. We have no clue what he stands on, and "I'm going to bully the world to do what I want" is a play yard tantrum, not realistic policy, in spite of what you write above.
Again, you deny what I write because you don't like it, because it isn't politically correct to say it, and because "it isn't nice".
What part of what I wrote would not be possible for a President Trump to do (assuming he had some level of popular support of course)? You call it a "play yard tantrum". Is it? When the person doing it is Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in the world?
Do you honestly not think we are unable to send the US Army to the border, secure some amount of buffer zone and make it a secure area?
Now, will Trump do that? I have no idea (probably not)... but if he is President, it is FAR from a "play yard tantrum"...
Lastly, the problem with immigration can be solved in an instant if you really want to: put strong penalties on employers for hiring illegal immigrants.
Remind me which of the people currently running for President have suggested that as their platform?
Since the answer is none, perhaps Trump is the only person who has proposed anything that might do SOMETHING... as opposed to all the hot air from everyone else.
Diplomatic actions have consequences. You write we are powerful we can force Mexico to build a wall. That is simplistic thinking.. what happens if Mexico legalizes drugs? or signs an alliance with China or Putin? or devolves into Syria and now you have 120 million people trying to cross the border instead of a few hundred thousand? No army division can hold back that many people.
Those are the many reasons why a play yard bully taunt wouldn't work. Anybody with an inch of political experience could see this. But that is not who Trump is talking to, he's aiming for the politically naifs who go "hell yeah", because the taunts make them feel good.
Diplomatic actions have consequences.
Yes they do, but doing nothing does as well. As I said, I didn't say it nicely, but I don't have to, I'm posting to Slashdot.
In reality, I believe that Trump knows that he would have to use a bit more tact than that.
You write we are powerful we can force Mexico to build a wall.
That isn't actually what I said. What I said is that we can make Mexico an offer. Let them build the wall with us, or let us do it on our own, on our own terms.
For all of Trump's bluster about "Mexico is going to pay for the wall", clearly the cost is up for discussion. Trump can sit down with the President of Mexico and say, "Look, you have a problem with drug cartels, we have a problem with illegal immigration. Lets work together to solve this. We'll split the cost of a wall, joint US and Mexican armed forces will patrol it, and in return, US Army forces will go into Mexico working WITH Mexican Army forces to fight the drug cartels and restore order to your nation. If we do this, we'll also work towards immigration reform to make it easier for people to come and go across the border, for cross border investment (factories, jobs, etc) and to enable familes to get back together."
That is the "lube" option.
The "no lube" option is far less desirable and would involve US Army forces doing all of the above, but without working with the Mexican Army. Now I imagine the Mexican Army might consider defending their land, and they would lose.
How would you like it? Friends, or not friends?
or signs an alliance with China or Putin?
China and Putin are far away, Mexico is right there. We also control the oceans on both sides of Mexico.
Russia took over Crimea because it was right there next to them, because it was far more important to them than it is to us. Ukraine also borders Russia and is clearly not an area we want to send US Army troops. Mexico is the same, but in reverse.
or devolves into Syria and now you have 120 million people trying to cross the border
Not even remotely the same situation, because we aren't trying to oppress the Mexican people, and neither is their government. Bashar al-Assad is...
Those are the many reasons why a play yard bully taunt wouldn't work.
You keep using that term. It doesn't really apply when the "bully" has the ability to back up his words.
Trump will try the carrot approach first, he is no fool, you work with people (he has done that all his life, you have to get large building projects approved). If you can't, then you work against them to replace them or push them aside to get what you want.
It doesn't mother who his fucking mother is. Ted Cruz is not a "real American" no matter what you say.
And yes, you know exactly what that means.
Strap-Ãns don't count.
You're such a card! Why don't you go ask all the members of the 99.9% who are now paying much much more for much much less health insurance coverage how voting D was in their self interest! Remember: if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. If you like your plan you can keep your plan.
Whoops.
The industry was in trouble.
Which only makes Carly's decisions (e.g. buying Comaq) even _more_ stupid. She should be laughed out of the room.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
They would take no-lube and shoot back.
The cartels ARE the real Mexican government. You could debate about weather the cartels own the parties, the parties own the cartels or they are both owned by the same people.
The PRI was the old cartel(s) whatever they are called. The PRD is Sineloa.
All you have to do is look at the statistics of who gets raided based on who is in charge. They don't even bother obfuscating, knowing nobody will report is domestically (they want to live) and nobody will report it in America (political correctness etc).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
We have no better choices than gridlock.
Name one?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
No, all the people stupid enough to fall for the 'free shit from the government' are already Bernie supporters. About 50% of the Ds. 25% of the population.
You can bet, if he wins the nomination, that the sensible Ds will stay home or change sides.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I don't think anybody has suggested that people don't have the right to pay for their own healthcare/insurance.
You really don't get this 'limited government' thing do you? The fact is was not listed, makes it none of the governments business.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It doesn't matter who was in charge. HP was headed down because nobody needed expensive instruments with their circuit boards gold plated "just because it's HP" anymore.
HP wasn't primarily an instrument business during her reign. The decision to spin off the test and measurement business was made before she started.
It doesn't really matter who was in charge at HP after the founders left and the era of bottomless government spending on Cold War technology ended. The place was in trouble, and big changes were warranted.
HP was never a major defense contractor. You won't find them in the top 10 list.
The tech bubble bursting, not supposedly bottomless government spending, was the big problem for HP (like so many other tech companies).
Losing the Founders probably hurt a lot as well. The ratio of competence to pay in US companies is very poor. Lots of reasons for that, read the industrial psychology literature. So-called "professional management" does in a lot of formerly good companies. In the era of the MBA, the illusion of competence is far more important than the reality.
Better management most likely could have done a whole bunch to cushion the impact of the tech crash. Good management is extremely rare, despite all the claims of the business magazines.
I love all that cool old gear but am glad my taxes aren't paying for it anymore.
Your taxes are still paying for a lot of that gear. Government labs and research grants are still a big part of the government budget, and they aren't buying cheap Asian knock-offs at the big box stores.
You pay even more for that gear when you buy consumer electronics that needs to be tested, such as cars (car computers and networks), cell phones, desktop computers, tablets, laptops, etc... The big spenders on electronic test and measurement equipment are the big semiconductor companies, and the chip and electronics fabs world-wide. All the costs they have get passed on to the consumer, and that means you (or the people you do business with, which in turn means you).
Of course, if it makes you feel better, HP no longer makes that gear.
Agenda much?
It is quite possible that you're right. I'd like to think even the drug lords are smart enough not to engage the US Army, but perhaps they aren't.
As for the Mexican President, he always has the choice to say that to Trump, at which point Trump can say, "Do you want out? Do you want my protection? Side with me, turn on the cartels, and you'll have US military protection against retaliation if you want it. You can say you invited us to help, you invited us in to crush these criminals. I'll put 10,000 troops around you and your family if I have to, you'll announce to the world that you have ASKED for American help in defeating this evil and that we will work together to rid ourselves of this menace."
And of course if all that you say is true, then perhaps we do need to clean up our southern border, it has been ignored too long.
It's a mess.
But invading would just set them all into Poncho Villa mode (now with meth and tequila).
It will take decades, but they will sort it out.
I believe it was 'The Economist' that sorted the raid statistics against who was in charge of the police. As I recall the data left little doubt about the linkages. Likely 'The Economist' doesn't have any reporters left in Mexico.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Bloomberg is an establishment candidate who would only enter the presidential race if one of the puppets of the financial interests--Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton--does not win his or her respective party's nomination for president.
That is, Bloomberg will run as a monkey wrench to thwart any credible attempt at reforming the American political and financial system. The only difference between Bloomberg and the puppets currently seeking their respective party's nominations is that Bloomberg is a multibillionaire and probably would not steal money for himself. In terms of domestic policy, he's no different from them.
My person opinion is that the best candidates to vote for are, in no particular order: Sanders, Trump, or a viable third party candidate who is relatively honest, seeks reform, and can actually get things done, like a Theodore Roosevelt.
For those fearing that Sanders is a socialist and the U.S. economy will become like France's, realize that the executive office is only one-third of the government. Particularly socialist or spending-other-people's money programs have a very high likelihood of getting voted down in Congress. And if Congress fails, the Supreme Court may have the ability to intervene, also.
That said, the U.S. has gone so far right in the past decades (Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama have all run right-wing economic policies. Don't let the party mascot fool you.) it might require a somewhat far left-leaning candidate to nudge it back towards center.
Trump is interesting but the question remains: He made his money thanks to the economic policies and laws passed. Will he really push for legislation to "screw over" his own class as FDR did?
Bottom line: If you want to vote Republican, vote for Trump; if you want to vote Democrat, vote for Sanders. If you want to vote for the best possible candidate, see if Theodore Roosevelt reincarnate comes back; if not, do your research and pick between Trump and Sanders.
But invading would just set them all into Poncho Villa mode (now with meth and tequila).
Maybe... or maybe in 30 years they end up like Germany... who wasn't happy we invaded, but we did kick out their government and look how that turned out?
Ok, so we totally screwed up Iraq, but that is because GWB and his inner circle were clearly idiots. But it CAN be done right.
It will take decades, but they will sort it out.
And that would be fine, if they weren't bothering us. But they are, so they don't get decades.
I believe it was 'The Economist' that sorted the raid statistics against who was in charge of the police.
I am FULLY aware the police are worthless in Mexico. I'm not, and never have been, talking about the police. I'm talking about the Mexican Army, which has been reported to be far less corrupted than the police ever were.
I don't think anybody has suggested that people don't have the right to pay for their own healthcare/insurance.
Plenty of medical options have been banned, some for quite spurious reasons. Some for quite legitimate ones.
And some doctors simply won't take cash payments. You have to present insurance.
That can make for some complications. What to do, what to do.
Well, at least since Reagan, they do have to provide emergency care regardless of your ability to pay.
So there is that.
You really don't get this 'limited government' thing do you? The fact is was not listed, makes it none of the governments business.
Unfortunately for you, at a certain level, healthcare has to be the government's business, because there's a lot of healthcare issues that apply to minors (who are recognized as needing custodianship), the infirm(same), and there are others that aggregate across a variety of individuals in a manner that can't be effectively managed on an individual basis. Various matters of public health like the spread of infectious disease and the management of sewage. Not to mention the questions of medical malpractice, medical certification, and medical necessity. You cannot make it none of the government's business, unless you want to revise our whole civil society. You may, from time to time, mouth sentiments of a sort, but I doubt you have the will to follow through, let alone sufficient insight to do so.
And yes, some of this was already recognized when the Constitution was written, as many entities within the US already had various laws controlling matters of health, but others have been recognized afterwards. That's the way society works, it evolves, it adapts, and it gets better. Fixes the broken parts.
In any case, I consider it my government's duty to ensure that I do have proper medical care available to me, that if they can't justify having the local facilities, they should manage transportation and interchange, so that I can get care.
Why? Because when having a heart attack, I would find it rather difficult to handle these arrangements myself.
Now you can feel free to pick your own doctor, and so forth, but I'm going to want somebody to hold that doctor to question if he makes a mistake, and it may not be me, for obvious reasons.
Germany was propped with with hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of dollars, and the USSR served as a useful foil, and the US didn't have the hundreds of years of history of France to live down.
Now you MIGHT be willing to pump even more billions into Mexico, it's not like NAFTA didn't do that already, but there is no convenient USSR to use as a scare tactic, and there's a lot of US-Mexican history to get past.
Good luck.
My usage of police includes feds and military. They are attributed to the national government and were tracked in the article I read.
You realize the Mexican military has/had a cartel all its own? IIRC PRD has just finished, more or less, taking over their territory.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You realize that it won't be the government holding the doctor to task? It will be the medical boards and the hospitals review committees. Both of which are private.
Healthcare does not _have_ to be the governments business. You would prefer it that way is all.
You obviously don't get the 'limited government' thing, nor why it's important. Enjoy your tyranny.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You do realize those medical boards and hospitals all rest their capacity to act on government authority, right? Unlicensed doctors are arrested for violating state laws. Hospitals have a charter and a duty of care.
And I don't know about your state, but in mine, it is a division of the Department of Health. Same with other professional boards, though they are Commerce or Justice or whatever instead.
That's how we hold them accountable, with the government. Now if you want to talk about holding the government accountable, that is another question. But you just leapt into the hyperbole about tyranny. Sing me another tune, that one is out of place since you have no idea where I really stand. You just want to believe you know it, or worse yet, you don't even think about it, you just say it because it is the only thing you can imagine.
Yes, we have to watch out for it, but then we have to watch out for the misbehavior of private individuals as well. That's why we have a government, isn't it? Because too many of our neighbors are fuckwitted shitheads.
Now what to do about that same problem in government? I have many thoughts on that. You could, however, at least do me the courtesy of asking me what I would do about a corrupt and tyrannical government first. You might be surprised.
Agilent does. We all know that.
HP didn't need to be a top-tier defense supplier, They were a major instrument supplier to all the top-tier defense suppliers. Doubtless there was a lot more money in it for them being that way.