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
...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.
Yes, but only while running companies into the ground.
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.
One to go? W/ Christie and Carly dropping out, there are 6 to go - Gilmore, Carson, Bush, Kasich, Rubio and Cruz. Trump will win YUUUUUUUGE and can then pick his team.
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
Trump is winning out because the saner vote is still split. Even 33% of the vote isn't enough to win the nomination. If the others drop out soon, Trump will need to come to grips with the other 64% of the Republican voters.
Trump is one of those people that will never get the rest of the party to unite behind him. The establishment candidates would usually start supporting the front-runner after they drop out in the name of party unity, but none of them will support Trump because they believe he will permanently ruin the party's chances of winning a national election. They will support the person who is not Trump who is left over after the bloodbath.
That's why this primary is deceptive. Alone, the other candidates represent only a sliver of votes compared to Trump. Together, they are the majority. It would be one thing if Trump could get some upside from the others dropping out, but anyone who voted for Christie or Fiorina or Carson isn't going to be voting for Trump.
Trump's support base is solid, but he has nowhere to go.
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.
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.
Sorry, I meant 'will only win if Dems rob Sanders of the nomination. Or if Bloomberg enters the race and splits the Democrats.
She just HATES Trump!!! I can't see her doing that. Actually, she & Cruz are unique opposites: Cruz is a senator who's perceived as an outsider, due to his opposition to his own party in Congress. Carly is an ex CEO whose stances on the issues are identical to Bush, Graham, Christie and Kasich. I can see her endorse Kasich or maybe Rubio.
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.
Even considering the general poor quality of the candidates this year, his successful campaign is a head-scratcher.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
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.
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.
I hate to admit it, but I think you're right...
He has a solid base of angry people who don't like what we currently have, but there is a decent chance that anyone who would support him, already does.
It may grow a bit, but can it grow to more than 50% of the population? Or at least the 50% in the states that count?
---
I watched their various speeches last night, the irony is that Trump was rather humble in accepting victory, a bit out of place for him. It is possible that he sees winning as a real possibility and now has to pay attention to the other 64% of Republican voters.
If he adjusts his message a bit and starts to come across as a bit more "Presidential", whatever that may be, then maybe he has a shot.
No one else running on the Republican side would win. I would probably vote for Rubio, while holding my nose. I'd never vote for Cruz (and I'm from Texas!). He is FAR too religious right wing for me.
Trump? Meh, sure... he is either brilliant, or nuts, or both, and I'm not sure which.
---
Back to the Democrats, I watched Hillary last night, ugg, I wanted to throw up. I really hate that women, she comes across as a used car sales person to me. I would never vote for her and if she becomes President, then we will get nothing done, because the Republicans in Congress will not work with her.
Sanders? I don't mind him so much. I don't agree with everything he says, but he comes across as honest about it. I would rather have him than Clinton.
If we get Clinton, then I'll ignore her and just ask the Republicans to stonewall and do nothing for 4-8 more years, she is toxic as far as I'm concerned.
If the Democrats had any brains, they would actually want Trump to win. Trump will walk right across the isle and work with Democrats in a way that no one else will do, and that'll get stuff done. He is pragmatic in a way that most of them aren't, even if he is a bit of a walking ego trip.
But last night's vote eluded the possibility of the party coming behind one alternative candidate. First of all, Cruz is hated even more than Trump, so he's out of the question as far as establishment support goes - in fact, people like Dole have already indicated that they'd prefer Trump to Cruz.
I also disagree w/ the other contention, given that Trump is the second choice of quite a few people who may primarily support the other candidates. Only 15% of Republicans say that they'd oppose Trump if he is the nominee, and that number is likely to go DOWN. Not to mention, Trump does have crossover support among blue collared workers across the country, and could at least make the North Eastern States, like NY, NJ, NH, CT in play, if not CA, OR, WA, VT, MA.
Also, the support of the other candidates, aside from Cruz, is scattered. Cruz has a clear plan in SC and the SEC primaries, but if Trump trumps him there, which is likely, he's unlikely to be more successful in the Mid Western states, and even less so in the Left Coast. Kasich doesn't have money left and would have to somehow hang on until OH. Bush has even HIGHER unfavorability ratings than Trump, and I actually don't expect him to do well in SC - not even third. Rubio could rebound, but he'd have to at least WIN some place, or start winning. So far, Trump is still top in FL and TX - beating Bush, Rubio & Cruz.
So no, the GOP nomination is very much Trump's. Only question is - how will it play on the other end? If Bloomberg enters the race, the Liberal vote gets split b/w Bloomberg and Sanders. If the Dems contrive a Hilary win, a huge number of Dems would either stay home, or support Trump, who unlike other Republicans, has big crossover appeal.
That was the conventional wisdom about a month ago. Problem now is, Cruz is doing OK, and he is the most anti-establishment candidate of them all. If you add up all the establishment candidate votes, it's well under 50%, even if you gave them Carson. All Don and Ted have to do is make a deal on who is at the top and bottom of the ticket, combine delegates, and they win the nomination.
Of course, they lose the general, along with the House probably, which is awesome.
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.
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.
If the others drop out soon
Unfortunately that may be the key. Ideally by Super Tuesday it should be down to 3 candidates, and by the last week of March it should be down to 2 candidates, but I have extreme doubts this will happen.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
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
Don't hold back, tell us what you think.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
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.
I still think the Marcobot has a good chance, they just need to patch his firmware before the next debate.
Trump is winning out because the saner vote is still split.
Maybe, but that assumes the other 60% is 'sane.' Some of those votes are guaranteed to go to Trump.
Lately I've started looking at Kasich as a reasonable alternative, and because he's more competent than Trump et al, but I don't think competency matters to most of the electorate.
I really wish it did, but the reality right now is that charisma matters more than competence, and Trump has it in spades, so he will win (which unfortunately means we'll have to listen to him for the next four years).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
his successful campaign is a head-scratcher.
This has happened twice in Australias recent political history with Pauline Hanson and Clive Palmer.
It is a direct sign of frustration with mainstream politics.
Most sane Americans know most of their politicians are bought by big business or controlled by a shadow government. Voting for buffoons is like a cry for help. Things aren't bad enough for an outright revolution, so the alternative is to 'stick it to the man' by supporting Trump.
46137
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.
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.
The "saner" people aren't voting for either Republicans or Democrats. Both parties work against the interests of the American people, and most have started waking up to that fact.
As for Trump, when you point out that he's not a conservative, to his supporters, they'll often agree with you and say that they don't care. The few people I know, who support him, are borderline Democrats on most things. He may not have room to grow, within the party, but he'll get plenty of independents, and I suspect Democrats, if Hillary gets the nomination.
Hanson and Palmer...good link. Some of the same thinly-veiled pandering to the worst of us as the Two Kings tow-headed boy.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
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.
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?
Trump, Cruz, and ?
I imagine Rubio will continue to do well even in the face of his embarrassing debate gaffe, Kasich doesn't have the money (but is probably their best option), and Bush has a ton of money to keep going. I imagine Carson's few will back Cruz or Trump when he folds.
I'm curious which establishment candidate South Carolina will unite behind.
If the Democrats had any brains, they would actually want Trump to win. Trump will walk right across the isle and work with Democrats in a way that no one else will do, and that'll get stuff done. He is pragmatic in a way that most of them aren't, even if he is a bit of a walking ego trip.
Well... right. But part of that is realizing that the next president will certainly be a 1-term president, with the other party taking over in 2021. There's a financial collapse coming that will be even worse than 2008, maybe even worse that 1929, and there is a civil war looming in Europe. The tensions over there are hardly covered at all by the US media, and only anemically by the media in the EU. It will be a massive amount of turmoil for the next administration that no President can do anything about (or survive).
Sanders is probably the only one that could live through it, if he could orchestrate a massive growth of Federal programs ala FDR. But even Sanders is likely to be seen as a Herbert Hoover in the aftermath.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Thats cute, you think you know how people vote.
You've got it all figured out in your own little head ... of course thats only because you have this ridiculously narrow view point thats entirely clouded by the fact that you think YOUR party is superior and too ignorant to realize you're just a stupid as all the morons who are going to vote for Trump.
You are still voting for a team, and not the president. Likewise, so is the rest of the general public who has no real understanding of how the government actually works and think that choosing the president is a matter of your favorite color or team mascot.
99.9999 of the voting public votes for their favorite team, they don't know shit about the candidates other than the crap spewed in the media recently. With that in mind, Trump's got a good shot.
We're fucked if he wins, but the same is true for sanders and billary, so it really doesn't matter much
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Bush has even HIGHER unfavorability ratings than Trump
One of those small things that give me a glimmer of hope in the electorate.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
even in the face of his embarrassing debate gaffe
He is only the latest. Many of these have already been mostly forgotten.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Lose to Bernie? Bernie is not electable.
Lose to Hillary? Hillary can't even win the DNC primaries fair. Though I don't put it past her to tie up all the super delegates and win enough others to trump (pun intended) Bernies delegates, and get the nomination. Which would keep all the Bernie fans home in Nov, or worse, going to one of the Socialist/Communist party candidates.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
If you add up all the establishment candidate votes, it's well under 50%, even if you gave them Carson.
OMG please don't include Carson in the "establishment" pool - he is far from it (having never held public office, for one thing). Carson was one of the few in the whole field that I had any respect for (despite some well-advertised gaffs), but it looks like now he'll be one of the next ones dropping out.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
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
Lately I've started looking at Kasich as a reasonable alternative
Well, Kasich is a Democrat, and has admitted as such. So I guess if you're looking for an alternative between Establishment Hillary and Socialist Sanders, he's a good choice. But since he's vying for the wrong nomination, that just means you'll end up with Hillary or Sanders.
I'm still confused by the waffling of the Democratic voters. I can't figure out why any of them are supporting Hillary over Sanders, other than they think she has a better chance of winning. That strike me as being okay with Lucifer winning the election, because he's in the Correct Party.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
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.
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
That explains why Kasich hasn't gotten as much support as I would have expected.
Vote for Hillary because Bill seemed ok, so she'll probably be kind of like him.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
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.
They are entirely different beasts. Hanson always used the elitism/racism/victim card.
Yes, Palmer used the frustration with mainstream politics to get elected on a platform of conservative policies plus social reform. Once in power he rapidly revealed he was a millionaire with policies for millionaires only and social reform would be thrown under the nearest bus.
Maybe there's a lesson there for Trump supporters but if Americans didn't learn it when GW Bush was in power, history will repeat itself.
> 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...
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.
I watched their various speeches last night, the irony is that Trump was rather humble in accepting victory, a bit out of place for him. It is possible that he sees winning as a real possibility and now has to pay attention to the other 64% of Republican voters.
He might be looking at the possibility of actually winning and starting to realize what a s#!tstorm is waiting for the victor in 2017.
Obama is pretty obviously just trying to run the clock out on his time in office, and leaving the mess for the next person to clean up.
If I were a candidate in either party, I'd be seriously considering handing the primary victory to someone else and saying, "See ya' in 2020!"
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
Ask most people what the big risks are, and you won't hear the IMF not releasing the next tranche of bailout funds to the Ukraine unless things change fast (because most of the previous tranche went to corrupt officials and crooks), various member countries resurrecting national borders, Brexit, Grexit, North Vietnam, Russia, Syria, negative interest rates in Japan and the European Central Bank, the F-35 needing the protection of a limited number of F-22s in a major confrontation, especially against the Su35 Flanker, China's erratic economy, the failure of QE (quantitative easing) to stimulate economies, the looming risk of deflation, the Sprattley Islands, South Korea missile defense system, South American economies on the verge of collapse, Puerto Rico's debt problems, massive corruption in various countries sapping their economies, the start of the latest tech bubble bust, droughts, profit-shifting to tax havens, global warming, etc., etc.
It's going to be scary.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
He hasn't learned anything. I watched a clip of him being interviewed about the debate gaffe, and ha had a Britney Speeres "oops, I did it again" momemt - he repeated the same scripted response over and over.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I still think the Marcobot has a good chance, they just need to patch his firmware before the next debate.
What could possibly go wrong go wrong go wrong go wrong go ...
Next contest - who can hack the Rubiobot?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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.
"reins", not "reigns". Thank you.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Would any candidate actually WANT her endorsement? Lots of people have a visceral dislike of her superficial, scripted, lies. Any endorsement by her will be a contagion to any candidate.
"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!
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.
Many people refer to the GOP leader as "The Donald."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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 agree w/ you about Hilary, but disagree about Bernie. If Bernie is the nominee, he can win in a landslide. As he pointed out in his acceptance speech, when turnout is high, Dems win. If he is the nominee, all Liberals, Social Democrats, Socialists, Communists, Leninists, Maoists, Cheists, Chavezists will come out of the woodwork and vote for him.
Trump, Cruz, and ?
I imagine Rubio will continue to do well even in the face of his embarrassing debate gaffe, Kasich doesn't have the money (but is probably their best option), and Bush has a ton of money to keep going. I imagine Carson's few will back Cruz or Trump when he folds.
I'm curious which establishment candidate South Carolina will unite behind.
I think it will be either Rubio or Kasich. Bush has high unfavorables that exceed even Trump's. At a level, I do sympathize w/ him - he was a fine governor, but as a presidential candidate, he plans to re-use everybody who worked w/ either his brother or father. And nobody has good memories of that, given all the Liberal compromises that President Bush 43 made. Most of the current Republican anger against the establishment has its origins in Bush: HE is the one who removed opposition to illegal immigration from the GOP platform in 2000. So if Jeb were to be the candidate, it would be a redux of Dole or McCain.
Rubio's biggest problem is his criticisms of Obama are pretty much the same situation he's in except with a shitty record of going to vote. His story is nice but why would I bother to vote for a guy who can't be bothered to do his job.
Grammer ignorami. Proper nouns should NEVER be preceded by articles.
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."
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!
Grammer ignorami. Proper nouns should NEVER be preceded by articles.
Oh, the definite article is very commonly used before proper nouns, most often place names or geographical features (e.g. "The Mississippi (River)").
Sometimes "the" is used purely customarily (particularly in names translated from other languages like "The Ukraine" or "The Maghreb" ), but its primary function is to distinguish between nouns referring to specific things a speaker is expected to be aware of, and generic things that are just being introduced into the discourse: "a ball [which I haven't mentioned up until now] broke Mr. Smith's window; Mr. Smith kept the ball [which I just mentioned]."
In particular proper nouns which sound like they might be generic will sometimes customarily get a "the" tacked on to indicate the audience is expected to picture the well-known thing rather than some unknown one ("The United States", "The Great Lakes", "The Big Easy"). "The Donald" is a definite article usage of this type, with an bit of ironic deprecation mixed in.
By the way the plural of "ignoramus" is "ignoramuses", not "ignorami". That is because "ignoramus" was never a noun in Latin; rather it is a conjugation of the verb ignorare (to be unacquainted with, to ignore). "Ignoramus" entered English as a legal term to mean "we take no notice of" (e.g. a witness whose testimony is irrelevant because he has no firsthand knowledge).
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
And employers don't generally just go out of business just because there's a union.
Generally no, but ask how the former employees of Hostess are doing...
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.
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.
I'm glad she's out of the race but you realize Fiorina is the only candidate you refer to by first name.
What about "Jeb!" ? And "The Donald" ?
Besides, most people refer to her neither as "Carly" or "Ms. Fiorina", but as "that #**@ who ruined HP".
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!
And you actually believe the owners when they blamed the union? How touching.
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.
And you actually believe the owners when they blamed the union? How touching.
What, you think they filed bankruptcy, converted it to a chapter 7 liquidation, all for... what? Negotiation tactics?
Do you really hear yourself? The business closed, liquidated, doesn't exist anymore... the assets and name were sold off at auction, the former people in charge aren't there anymore either.
The whole company is gone, poof, history. The union pushed and pushed and pushed... and lost...
Unions didn't lose their power in the past 30 years due to some magic fairy dust, they lost it by being greedy and stupid.
"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.
If, by "pushed", you mean accepted concessions that reduced pay, stopped contributions to pension schemes while the executives got massive pay rises, then yes.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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
I would only vote for Rubio if he were the ultimate nominee - I don't support socialism, and I have an even greater allergy to Hilary than to Jeb. Other than that, I do prefer his views to Kasich, but I could live w/ Kasich. But there is no way I could support Jeb, Hilary or Sanders
As an OH governor, he has veered left a lot. But he was a key member of Newt's Class of 94, and submitted balanced budgets. I don't like his Leftward tilt in some aspects, but as far as the budget goes, he happens to be the best.
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.
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".
Yes, because the several other Unions that did agree to the needed terms, the company said it needed to remain afloat also blamed the one Union that refused to cooperate and thus forced the company out of existence. The Hostess product you buy today is made by another company that bought the rights to the names, logos and recipes .
All because one Union refused to budge when the company pleaded with them that the Union's demands would put them out of business.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
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.
Agreed, Bush's biggest flaw is his last name. America will not vote for another Bush, at least not for a few decades. For him to get the nomination would in my opinion guarantee a Democrat win on his last name alone. That despite his actual accomplishments and abilities.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
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...
Probably more like "Fi-o-ri-na" being more of a mouthful than "Carly". I'd say there's a fairly even split between candidates being identified by first vs. last name. I'm constantly reading and hearing about "Bernie" and "Hillary" as well. "Rand" was called "Rand"and he even marketed himself as "Rand". "John" and "Chris", or even "Donald" are such common names that they don't effectively serve as unique identifiers for the candidates. "Chris 2016!" just doesn't work. Marco might fall into that group as well, but you hear "Marco" and your brain says "Polo". I think "Bush" is obvious because of the family name recognition.
I don't believe it was some sort of sexist conspiracy to demean Fiorina.
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.
"saner" but still technically less than SANE. all republican choices are bad. they're basically a bunch of mean-spirited jerks with little to no empathy for other people, SOCIOPATHS by another definition.
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.
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).
And that union probably did not believe the threats to close the company because the management awarded themselves huge increases while demanding cuts from the union workers, who had already given large concessions in pay and retirement benefits.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Well, I'm impressed. :-)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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 was the Twinkies. They made FlyHelicopters post his comment in a murderous rage.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Really, it's OK. Nobody needed that fake shit food anyway.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
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 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'
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.
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'
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.