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.

Comments

And there was much rejoicing!

[ErikTheRed]

(Peasants half-heartedly shout "yay!")

Re:And there was much rejoicing!

[alvinrod]

I wouldn't necessarily cheer. If all of her supporters (only about 4% in NH, and even less in Iowa) went to the candidate you liked least of the remaining and it was close enough to put them in a position to win, you probably would prefer that she stay in the race. Though it this case it's not like it really matters much as the rest of the Republican candidates are so unappealing I'd rather vote for a self-described Socialist than any of the remaining Republican plonkers. At least Sanders is honest (for a politician anyway), but it remains to be seen if he'll get his party's nomination as the establishment seems bent on backing Clinton.

Re:And there was much rejoicing!

[rtb61]

The establishment backing Clinton in the face of the exact democratic opposite would mean it really should change it's name from the Democrats to Republicans lite (as opposed to Republicans bagger edition). The blatant corruption is on show and it will blow right up in their faces if they keep attempting to force the issue, the corrupt control of politics versus the electorates attempts to recover control of their politics. The corporate controlled DNC "Bent on backing Clinton", 'bent' being a very appropriate word choice. Reality is we win either way.

Re:And there was much rejoicing!

[Curunir_wolf]

Fox News has done an excellent job at radicalizing the base

You're kidding, right? I'm starting to think the whole network is run by the Democrats, as spelled out on the NoAgendaShow. Bush and Rubio are the only guys those jerks ever promote. They're firmly establishment, and spend as much time bashing Trump and Cruz as they do Bernie Sanders.

Re:And there was much rejoicing!

[Archangel Michael]

To be honest, the choices for the D candidates is even more pathetic. You have a confirmed liar and a socialist nutjob who hasn't run anything. I'm not liking where our country is headed.

Re:And there was much rejoicing!

[unixisc]

Different people within the network have different people they back. Megyn seems to back Christie, Kasich and Carly. Hannity seems to back Trump, Cruz and Rubio. O'Reilly too seems to like Trump & Cruz. Greta Trump. From the Special Report team, most are anti Trump and pro establishment. Krauthammer seems to prefer Rubio and Christie. Stephen Hayes seems to be an 'anyone-but-Trump'. Brit Hume seems to have reverted to his ABC days when he was a Liberal: he has a clear disdain for not just Trump, but Cruz as well. The network is all over the map.

Re:Important Stuff (For the discussion)

[halivar]

Notice what isn't on the list of "important stuff"? Carly's presidential run.

Next.

Re:Can carly's pussy squirt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but only while running companies into the ground.

Re:Already???

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

... but how does that one QUALIFY her for this job?

Nothing she has ever done has qualified her to be president of the United States, not even close.

She's a repulsive person, an unrepentant liar, a dissembler, a demagogue, an arrogant authoritarian, a bully, a dreadful CEO, a horrible human being, and a living example of the "uncanny valley".

They really should have spent more on CarlyBot's skin and facial expressions if they wanted people to think she was human. I mean, you could tell right away that it was all just animatronics.

Hammerheads in Vermont

[unixisc]

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

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[mrchaotica]

Not true. Sanders and (for example) Rand Paul agree on a surprisingly large number of issues, especially on things like the PATRIOT Act.

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[bondsbw]

Perhaps if you, and others who have views like yours, would thoughtfully consider both sides and come to your own conclusions about the merit of specific ideas, you might realize that the political spectrum is very multi-dimensional. The only ones who want it to be a choice between exactly two possibilities are the GOP and Democrats.

For example, I've always leaned conservative and very much tended to vote Republican. From that I know why I don't support minimum wage increases (it causes unemployment increases and reduces incentive to learn the skills required for just-above-minimum-wage positions, while unfairly targeting low-skill labor markets). I would even consider the idea of getting rid of it altogether. But instead of just blowing off the idea completely, I started looking into why people support it. Turns out, I also don't want many people dying of hunger or huge increases in homeless people in the streets and poverty-induced crime. So my current favorite solution is to satisfy both: direct government wealth redistribution from the richest to fund food, shelter, clothing, and other essentials for the poorest, combined with removing the minimum wage in order to increase employment and hence reinstate labor competition.

Not that any of that matters. Too many people like yourself only see black-and-white, unless you are willing to think for yourself.

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[alvinrod]

I tend to lean towards free market policies, but given the attacks on personal liberties that most other candidates have come out in favor of, I'll take economic policies I don't like if it means the government won't by spying on me. Sanders doesn't have the best record as far as I'm concerned when it comes to second amendment rights, but he's not as bad as a lot of Democrats. If nothing else, Sanders seems reasonable enough that he won't just shove whatever crap the big corporations, unions, or his party is pushing.

Aligning yourself with a political party and not being able to look outside of it is fucking stupid no matter who you are. It's a large part of the reason we've ended up with so many shitty candidates and such bitter partisan politics where things largely fall along party lines.

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[FlyHelicopters]

For example, I've always leaned conservative and very much tended to vote Republican. From that I know why I don't support minimum wage increases (it causes unemployment increases and reduces incentive to learn the skills required for just-above-minimum-wage positions, while unfairly targeting low-skill labor markets). I would even consider the idea of getting rid of it altogether. But instead of just blowing off the idea completely, I started looking into why people support it. Turns out, I also don't want many people dying of hunger or huge increases in homeless people in the streets and poverty-induced crime. So my current favorite solution is to satisfy both: direct government wealth redistribution from the richest to fund food, shelter, clothing, and other essentials for the poorest, combined with removing the minimum wage in order to increase employment and hence reinstate labor competition.

Likewise, I have often felt the minimum wage was a mistake, it implies that the waged listed is "acceptable" because it is "approved".

Without one at all, perhaps people might get more, but it leaves them free to take less if they wish. The problem with such a system is that it works in theory, but not always in the real world where companies have more power than people do.

I've also done some detailed math recently and been surprised to find what raising the wage does to prices. It isn't as bad as the Republicans imply, but not as good as the Democrats promise (big shocker).

So I support two things now:

Raise the minimum wage for people over 18 years old to $15/hr, no exceptions other than a few for disabled workers who otherwise wouldn't have jobs at all. This includes waitstaff at restaurants.

Make the government the "employer of last resort". If you do not have a job, and you are hungry, poof, the government will employ you to do... something... for $10/hr.

That is your incentive to not stay working for the government, you'll make more if you can find a private sector job. Maybe the government can employ you to clean up trash, dig ditches, stack books at the library, etc. If you find a part time job for 20 hours a week at $15/hr, great... you may continue working for the government for the other 20 hours at $10/hr, giving you an incentive to take ANY private work you can find, it won't cost you your existing "welfare" as it does today.

Unemployment would be shortened to 1-3 months max, a short time to find another job, but not the year or more it is in some places now. Right now, we're paying a WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE to sit at home and do nothing. This is stupid.

I'm happy to provide for those who are hungry, but I do think they should work for it. It doesn't have to be fancy work, or even all that productive, it just has to be something. It is a way of saying, "no worries, we will not let you starve, here is work, here is food (maybe $3/hr of the $10/hr could be paid via food stamps)

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[roc97007]

That doesn't necessarily make Rand Paul a socialist. Like his father he has Libertarian leanings, which means he'll agree with socialists on some stuff, and with conservatives on other stuff. (In other words, both parties get to hate him.)

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[unixisc]

I am not locked to the GOP, but at the same time, the Dems have nothing in common w/ what I believe, so I wouldn't waste time looking at them.

Yeah, I do not believe only in conservative policies: while I am pro flat tax, am anti Islamic, support the 2nd amendment, oppose illegal immigration and lowering government regulations, I also happen to be pro choice on abortion (but not to the extent of supporting partial birth abortion or Planned Parenthood fetal tissue trafficking), anti Sunni Arab (which flies in the face of the Bush doctrine and pro Sunni Arab Republicans like Bush, Graham and Carly) and support reciprocal trade practices.

However, on the issues where I might think that the Dems come close, they do not. Like I agree more w/ the Dems than the GOP when it comes to Saudi Arabia. But if I support them, then I'd get something like an Obama, which is only too happy to bend over for an Iran, or has a rabid hostility to Israel - our one friend in the region. On trade, I support both Trump and Cruz, and on the Dem side, we have the TPP right now, so they're not satisfying me there either.

Yeah, one should not blindly follow the party - and that's precisely what the majority of voters particularly on the GOP side are doing. They are rejecting all the establishment candidates, and giving a fair hearing to heterodox voices, like Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich...

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[FlyHelicopters]

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.

That isn't as true as the parties would like you to think.

I can agree with Sanders that a national minimum wage of $15 is a good idea, while agreeing with Trump that we need to deploy the Army to the Mexican border and build a 20 foot wall.

I can agree with Sanders on national single-payer healthcare while agreeing with Trump that cutting the corporate tax rate would actually be good for most Americans.

And so on down the list it goes.

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[bondsbw]

But if I support them, then I'd get something like an Obama

This is, of course, not how it has to be. But our voting system doesn't allow it any other way. http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[dryeo]

Perhaps he is in favour of personal liberty and small government? Republicans (and Democrats) have consistently favored large government and trampling over the rights of the citizens while making whatever promises will get them elected.
So far the only successful libertarian movements have been socialist, which makes sense as socialism is in favour of the rights of the people while the various right wing movements are in favour of the rights of big business and/or the rich. In America both parties main differences are which big businesses they back with the Democrats throwing the odd bone to the people to attract those with leftist leanings and Republicans likewise throwing the odd bone to Conservatives to attract their votes.
The main problem with America is how successful the propaganda machine has been, including the idea that socialism equals big government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[mrchaotica]

Of course it doesn't. But if you're a libertarian and prioritize social issues, you might hold your nose and accept Sanders' economic policy rather than accept the Dominionist totalitarianism that the rest of the Republican candidates want.

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[crunchygranola]

But no one has ever adequately explained to me how, if society values a certain form of labor at $x, but we legislate to be $x*1.2, prices won't eventually inflate by x1.2; leaving the minimum wage earner with a larger bank account, but the same buying power; and society still paying equivalently the same in buying power for the labor that it had before.

Allow me to help you out. For goods and services that are provided through minimum wage labor, the actual labor cost is a fairly small component (not insignificant, but dominated by other costs). Raising the minimum wage form the current $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour is calculated to raise the cost of fast food for example by 4.3%, but more than doubling the salary of the employee. Obviously the cost of service provided by minimum wage labor cannot be 100% labor which is the only situation where your hypothetical could hold. Minimum wage workers are left much, much better off.

Certainly, I do recall from my youth, when minimum wages increased a few months later prices would also increase at places like McDonalds, Subway, and such... the places where minimum wage earners go.

Your youth must have been in the 1970s, I gather. An anomalous period of high inflation when the prices of everything was going up.

Granted, it's not like my degree is in economics, and I know there IS data that shows that minimum wage increases do boost the economy. But it just feels like voodoo.

Good that you are interested in actual facts (many here are not, their mind is made up and have no need for stinkin' facts). Yes, minimum wage increases do boost the economy. There are many natural experiments here, where one area raises minimum wages, while another does not. It is not voodoo at all. It is just very, very basic economics. Businesses make money selling things. To sell things people must have money to buy things, and be willing to spend it. Low wage people spend almost all their money buying things that many businesses sell, they aren't putting it into overseas bank accounts or buying yachts. In a consumer driven economy like ours, a higher share of the GDP going to labor leads to a higher growth rate, since there is more economic activity. That share has been declining for decades, and so has the economic growth rate.

Plus, when I was growing up, minimum wage jobs were for high-schoolers learning how to have a job, college kids earning beer money, and retirees who just wanted to get out of the house. No one expected to make a career out of it.

And now many people do depend on minimum wages to make a living. It is impossible in truth, so the difference is made up by public assistance - the government subsidizing low wage businesses. Walmart instructs its workers how to apply for public assistance, since otherwise they could not work at Walmart.

But a key point about minimum wage that so many here seem not to notice, but my Republican uncle who runs a business, and supports minimum wages, does - it levels the wage playing field. Without a minimum wage competitive pressure prevents him from offering higher wages to his workers, since the guy down the street will undercut him on prices by not doing that. When a decent minimum wage floor is in place, that disappears. There is no competitive disadvantage.

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[meglon]

government wealth redistribution

This alone makes you socialist/communist.

As a Libertarian, I oppose the Min Wage. As a realist, I know you cannot repeal it. But as jobs disappear because Robots take over for humans (http://www.businessinsider.com/momentum-machines-burger-robot-2014-8 ) Min wage will become a non-issue.

The problem is, Government shouldn't pick winners and losers in the marketplace. If something is "too big to fail" it is too big. Period.

For the past 35+ years we've been having a government redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to those who are already wealthy. What does that make the worthless fucking idiots who created that? By the way, take that extra nickel in your paycheck and go buy an encyclopedia to learn the difference between socialist and communist, and while you're at it look up democratic socialist. Paying attention to reality should also be on your list of "new things to try out" as well.

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[roc97007]

You correctly (although somewhat pejoratively) point out the choice a libertarian has to make in every election. I happen to think fiscal conservatism is at the moment more important than social liberalism, (because the fastest, most effective way to take away people's choices is to take away their fiscal discretion) so I'm going with the Republicans for now. Well, some of them. The ones that are actually fiscally conservative. Next election I might re-register and participate in the other primary, depending on the issues.

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[Darinbob]

government wealth redistribution

This alone makes you socialist/communist.

There are specific definitions of those words, even if you choose to ignore them.

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[Ol Olsoc]

you might hold your nose and accept Sanders' economic policy rather than accept the Dominionist totalitarianism that the rest of the Republican candidates want.

This needs modded up. It's good to see that someone is paying attention. Dominionist is exactly where the Pubs are heading, and everyone should do some research on exactly what they are and stand for.

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[rthille]

"fiscal conservatism"
But no one in the GOP is fiscally conservative...

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[Anonymous Coward]

You have apparently never been unemployed. I have. I was out of work for just over a year. If unemployment ended at 3 months I would have been forced into homelessness and poverty-induced crime. As a male, there's no shelters for me to go to like there are for women. Move to a cheaper apartment? No, apartments require you to have a source of income before they'll let you in and breaking your current lease early can cost $$$. I would now be in jail consuming lots of your taxes instead of earning 85K and paying lots of taxes. My unemployment benefits were mostly (completely?) covered by my employee. They paid the state which then paid me since I wasn't fired with cause. It cost you basically nothing in taxes and saved you from getting robbed.

When you are on unemployment, you're required to apply for jobs. There are random audits to make sure you're not lying. When you're out of work for over a year, you have to prove you submitted X number of applications per month (X is somewhere between 20-40, I forget). You provide when, where, and who you applied to and they follow up with some percentage of those companies. Lazy people can't do that and go off unemployment or are eventually uncovered, fined, then tossed in jail.

It doesn't matter if there are tons of jobs available or not. You have to actually be hired by the company. You have no control over that. On job related Slashdot articles there are always people saying they've had positions open for years and yet can't find anyone and you have people saying they've been out of work for years and can't find a job. You can retrain yourself (assuming you have time from the unemployment benefits which keep you from having to whore yourself out to multiple minimum wage jobs to keep that once affordable apartment that's more expensive to move out than stay). However you don't know how long you'll be out of a job so you can't train yourself for a specific position. You can learn a new skill, but jobs REQUIRE experience and you can't get years of that, especially if all your income and benefits cut out after 3 months. Recruiters do their best to stay away from people who don't already have jobs so that's another huge hurtle you need to slip around.

You could move, but you don't have the money, don't know where to move, and there's little reason to think you'd have better chances in the new area. If you have a medical issues and require CORBA (else you go without medical insurance), you definitely don't have any money what so ever. CORBA is $$$$$. (I don't know how this changed with Obamacare, I was unemployed before all that.)

If you force people into busy work, then they'll have no time to improve their skills to find real work. They'll become trapped. Finding a job is can be a full time job. You've got to make perfect resumes and cover letters for every application. You've got to find the actual open positions (there are tons of job ads that are just 'feelers'). You've got to create almost the exact same personal profile on almost every corporate website to apply to them and these sites are complete shit that barely work.

Sure, there is some fraud in unemployment just like there is in everything else. But you'd be much more effective if you went after large sources of fraud, like corporate taxes, rather than trying to kick random people when they're just above bottom. Please stop with the poor deserve to be poor bullshit. You might not realize it, but that's what you're pushing.

Minimum wage is a requirement. Without it the race to the bottom would be so fast the middle class would be gone in a year and we'd have civil unrest within two. Business owners and boards are too greedy. It can work in other societies, but not here in USA.

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[dyslexicbunny]

I'd rather we take the GS pay system approach to minimum wage. The cost of living in Kansas is waaaay less tan New York City. So we establish a minimum wage and then adjust based on where an employer is.

I'm also partial to guaranteed minimum income and no minimum wage. But it has to be enough for a very minimal lifestyle and no kid perks. Eliminate all the bureaucracy of the safety net programs as well as a good bit of social security's. Throw in socialized healthcare and things might be even better. Employer can't hold much over a lazy employee so they have to pay something reasonable to get people to show up and do stuff.

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[Dahamma]

Wait, what? We have the highest economic inequality in the last 100 years (and worse, in some ways). The last 40 years have basically been one right center economically conservative president after another (if you look at the math, Clinton did more to contribute to it than either Bush). Who's "choices" will be taken away by moderately raising taxes on those in the very top tax brackets? Trump, for example, says he wants to "make America great again", when if you look at it his definition of great (the economic boom of the 50s-60s) had a top tax bracket of 90%.

If you want a proven fiscal conservative and moderate social liberal, you should be supporting Hillary. None of the Republican candidates have the slightest clue what their back-asswards ideas will do to the US economy (and most people who actually have a clue say they will be disastrous). At least with Hillary you will get more of the same from the last 40 years.

I say that with the opinion that the majority of the country's social issues over the the history of the US have at their root cause economic inequality. Crime rates, educational imbalances/opportunity, racial inequality/bigotry, health care, and obviously significant poverty have been exacerbated by the fact that the top 0.1% has made more money than the bottom 50%. And they are just accumulating it for apparently no reason other than to keep score. The fact is, if you have something to live for and aren't just surviving day to day, you are a lot less likely to risk your life and future committing property crimes. But Republicans seem more willing to pay $50,000 a year to incarcerate a poor person than pay them a living wage (which is less than $50,000).

I wish we could get someone like Sanders in as President, and put the tax brackets back to where they were in 1960, fix the ridiculous capital gains rate, etc. Given the current divisiveness in US politics that probably won't happen. So we're probably still screwed for the foreseeable future...

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[ooloorie]

Of course it doesn't. But if you're a libertarian and prioritize social issues, you might hold your nose and accept Sanders' economic policy rather than accept the Dominionist totalitarianism that the rest of the Republican candidates want.

It's logically impossible to be simultaneously libertarian/liberal on social issues and socialist on economic issues. In the short term, socialists may appear to help oppressed minorities, but ultimately, their societies invariably turn totalitarian. Take it from someone who has experienced it first hand.

accept the Dominionist totalitarianism that the rest of the Republican candidates want.

Conservative Christian nuts are in the minority in the Republican party. And I'll take a Christian totalitarian state over a socialist totalitarian state any day.

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[Archangel Michael]

I have one question for you. How has voting 90% helped blacks get out of places like Chicago and Detroit?

My point, if it is too subtle for you is that voting DNC in lockstep hasn't helped the very people the DNC claims as its untouchables. Though they keep trying to blame Republicans for everything done in the name of socialism and social justice.

MY view is doing "nothing" as you say, would have been better than keeping them enslaved to the DNC party has. And having a Black President hasn't helped them in the slightest either.

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[ooloorie]

For the past 35+ years we've been having a government redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to those who are already wealthy.

That's just not true. People are uniformly better off today than they were 35 years ago. What has happened is that tax burdens have shifted somewhat. And if you look at government taxation and spending, you'll find that the only income group that pays substantially more than they receive in government benefits is the top 20%.

We do have a massive problem with crony capitalism in the US, where companies that are in bed with the government and politicians benefit massively. But that's a separate issue from inequality and income distribution.

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[ooloorie]

The actual sociopaths running the show and funding their party do not have that belief and do not care beyond the fact that they still need to sell it to the people who'll be harmed by their policies.

The actual sociopaths are the kind of politicians you support. And, no, I don't "feel sorry for you": your stupidity and ignorance harms everybody.

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[TsuruchiBrian]

Other ways in which the Republican party may not be for you include:
1. You believe in science
2. You believe in the whole constitution (not just the 2nd amendment)
3. You don't hate minorities, women, gay people, nor non-Christians
4. You are willing to pay some taxes
5. You don't want to shut down the government every 3 months
6. You don't want to attack other countries
7. You actually want smaller government
8. You don't want corrupt politicians representing you
9. You are a William F Buckley conservative
10. You are a Ronald Reagan conservative

I didn't start 2015 wanting to vote for a socialist, but I would vote for just about anyone who can convince me they are not a crook, and in this election only a socialist succeeded, so I guess I'm voting for a socialist.

As an independent I'd love for their to be a sane conservative voice to oppose the other candidate that isn't full of shit, but unfortunately we don't really get one this election cycle. That's cool, I'm happy we at least have one. It makes my decision making process pretty easy.

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[dryeo]

How the hell do you come to the conclusion that the DNC and Obama are socialist? Have you not seen their actions? They're just as pro-big business as the Republicans, just different big businesses. Banks getting bailed out and then endless streams of free money printed just for their use, a socialist would have nationalized the banks, broken them up and hopefully turned them into credit unions or at least sold small banks back to the people.
Look at their healthcare reform, the only ones benefiting are the insurance companies with a guaranteed clientele.

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[RespekMyAthorati]

Take it from someone who has experienced it first hand.

Where?

-Sweden?
-Norway?
-Denmark?
-Netherlands?
-Finland?

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[meglon]

http://www.epi.org/publication...

Wage stagnation for the lower 2 quintiles, while a massive increase for the already wealthy. While some people like to use the "economy isn't a zero sum game," it actually is. There is X amount of money in the economy, and it goes somewhere. When laws are passed, and tax cuts made, that overwhelmingly favor the already rich... everyone else is simply some form of fucked over. Productivity has gone up, with all that new generation of wealth going straight up. That is a redistribution of wealth from the people that actually produce, to those that sit on their ass and invest.... who are then taxes less because it's capital gains.

And yes, the tax burden has shifted. Back in the 80's, Reagan was all about the tax cuts (at first). The wealthy sure loved him, but it increased the deficit and debt, so he decided to raise taxes. It wasn't the wealthy he raised taxes on, though.... it was the poor and middle class. Government redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to, yes you guessed it, the already wealthy.

http://acivilamericandebate.co...

Along with some other good information, half way down the page is an interesting chart showing the difference Reagan's tax cuts had. The entire premise of trickle down economics is bullshit, and is the basis for the economic inequity we're suffering right now... along with all the ill effects that has on society. It has, because of the government sticking to the absurdity of it, redistributed wealth upwards.

People are uniformly better off today than they were 35 years ago...... And if you look at government taxation and spending, you'll find that the only income group that pays substantially more than they receive in government benefits is the top 20%

And neither of those things have anything to do with the fact that the government, in the pockets of the wealthy, has been redistributing wealth from the poor and middle class for the last 35+ years, and certainly neither of them refute what is obvious to pretty much anyone who's been alive since before the 80's (and is actually old enough to remember them). My mea culpa is, i actually voted for Reagan... at least it didn't take me more than a couple years to see how truly fucked up his voodoo economics was, and foresee the devastation it would bring on this country if it wasn't changed.

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[unixisc]

Other ways in which the Republican party may not be for you include: 1. You believe in science

One can believe in science w/o necessarily believing that the word on AGW is final

2. You believe in the whole constitution (not just the 2nd amendment)

Only if 'believe' implies interpreting the constitution, as opposed to making up things that it doesn't say.

3. You don't hate minorities, women, gay people, nor non-Christians

Plenty of Republicans don't hate any of these groups. Neither do I. I do have an exception - Muslims, and that's b'cos of a combination of what Islam teaches - intolerance and hatred of non-Muslims - combined w/ an actual practice of those beliefs by an indeterminable number of Muslims worldwide

4. You are willing to pay some taxes

Nobody is opposed to ALL taxes. But given the current levels of taxation on all income groups, as well as the excessively complicated tax code, there is widespread support for any combination of simplified and flat taxes.

5. You don't want to shut down the government every 3 months

If one is willing to keep funding everything that President Obama wants - from Syrian refugees to Planned Parenthood, one should definitely avoid voting Republican, and stick to the Dems. We don't want you polluting our party

6. You don't want to attack other countries

...that are Muslim, and when there are no US interests involved. It is however okay, if one is a Democrat, to attack countries like Serbia and carve out large parts of their territory - like Bosnia or Kosovo - and recognize their separatist government, particularly if Muslim. It's particularly okay since it does squat to benefit the US. Just don't attack any MUSLIM countries, or any countries when US interests are involved.

7. You actually want smaller government

As Rand Paul proved, that's actually welcome

8. You don't want corrupt politicians representing you

Something voters dealt w/ the GOP in 2006, which cost Bush his Congressional majorities

9. You are a William F Buckley conservative

In which case, one can support Cruz, Rubio or even Kasich

10. You are a Ronald Reagan conservative

That's a mantle almost everybody in the GOP claims. It's obvious that too many of them have either forgotten, or have no idea what it means

I didn't start 2015 wanting to vote for a socialist, but I would vote for just about anyone who can convince me they are not a crook, and in this election only a socialist succeeded, so I guess I'm voting for a socialist.

As an independent I'd love for their to be a sane conservative voice to oppose the other candidate that isn't full of shit, but unfortunately we don't really get one this election cycle. That's cool, I'm happy we at least have one. It makes my decision making process pretty easy.

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[silentcoder]

Except of course that the republican party was the original social democrats of America. The progressive movement was started by the republicans, probably the most progressive president America ever had (and in terms of domestic policy - the closest to Sanders) was Teddy "The Trustbuster" Rooseveldt - a republican.

The republican party only really went far-right in the goldwater years, and the democrats didn't go left -at at least no more than to pass the civil rights act (which I would call centrist at best). By the early 1990s America had two right wing parties - and the democrats was the more rightwing one in policy (if not in rhetoric), Clinton expanded the drug war and racist incarceration laws in ways that Nixon, Reagan and Bush could only have dreamt about. He gutted the welfare system in a way that they would never have dared to !

The progressive voters moved to the democrat party in the 2000s only - and they were a minority. Even in 2008 during the Obama campaign only 23% of Democrats identified as liberal, 47% identified as "moderate" and the remaining small bit as "conservative". That shifted sharply since then. Today 45% or more democrats identify as liberal - and they are finally pulling the supposedly leftwing party towards actual leftwing policies. Bernie is riding that wave - and it may just mean you get another example of one of your strong contenders for best president ever (T. Rooseveldt). The top two competitors for that title would be Lincoln and FDR.

Funny how, as a devoted and hardline liberal - I nevertheless consider two of the best presidents America ever had to have been republicans. But this was before the republican party became literally the exact opposite of everything it was created as.

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[ooloorie]

Wage stagnation for the lower 2 quintiles, while a massive increase for the already wealthy.

Assuming that analysis were true, how would "wage stagnation for the lower two quintiles" translate into a "redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy"? Wage stagnation means that people are getting the same income as before; nothing has been "redistributed" at the level of wages all.

But the premise itself is actually wrong in many ways. Note that the analysis is in terms of household incomes. But household demographics have changed over the years, so has the labor pool and labor participation; the comparison of household wages over time is apples-to-oranges. In addition, there are technical problems with those analyses; for example, a large portion of the "increase" at high income levels is because how those incomes have been reported over time in IRS statistics, not any actual change in income.

The chart about productivity is also nonsensical. To the degree that nominal output per worker has risen and hourly compensation has stagnated since the 1970s, the reason is automation and better technology. Calling output per worker "worker productivity" is misleading because it falsely suggests that the increases are due to the worker.

You also need to realize that the discussions about low and high income groups don't refer to static groups. The vast majority of Americans will make a middle class income during part of their life. The majority of Americans will be in the top 10%, 39% will be in the top 5%, and 12% of the population will be in the top 1%. "The 1%" for the most part aren't ultra-rich scrooges, they are successful middle class professionals towards the end of their careers: doctors, lawyers, engineers, software developers.

There is a host of other problems with the analysis, but the EPI statements are basically a web of misrepresentations and politically motivated nonsense.

And yes, the tax burden has shifted. [...] Government redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to, yes you guessed it, the already wealthy.

In what way do shifts in taxation alone amount to "redistribution"? Assume there are two people and I take $15 from one person and $5 from the other person; have I "redistributed" anything? No. Now I give $20 to the person I took $15 from and nothing to the person I took $5 from. Have I redistributed anything? Of course I have, namely from the person with the "lower tax burden" to the person with the "higher tax burden", contradicting your taxation only analysis of redistribution.

Redistribution is about taking money from some people and giving it to other people. And once you analyze both sides of the equation, you find a very different picture, namely that, looked at by income quintile, only the top quintile pays substantially more than they receive in benefits (link in my previous posting).

What really hurts people about redistribution, however, is redistribution within groups. In particular, within the middle class, there are many winners and many losers, even if redistribution balances out overall for middle income groups.

and certainly neither of them refute what is obvious to pretty much anyone who's been alive since before the 80's (and is actually old enough to remember them)

I have no doubt that that reflects your experience and that that makes you angry. But if your parents could afford a house in a nice neighborhood, it's not surprising that you can't. A good middle class income isn't a birthright you inherit, it's something you need to have the skills to obtain and maintain for yourself, and those skills are lost over a couple of generations: from shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations. For people like you, who are doing worse than their parents, there are many other people who are doing better. My parents grew up dirt poor and worked their way up, a

Re:Hammerheads in Vermont

[ooloorie]

None of those countries are socialist. They are Nordic welfare states.

Re:One down.

[tnk1]

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.

Re:She's a dumb woman who drove HP into the ground

[tnk1]

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.

Re:One down.

[rmdingler]

Spot on. Also, outside of the sparsely populated early primaries, it remains to be seen if his apparent appeal translates into votes.

Even considering the general poor quality of the candidates this year, his successful campaign is a head-scratcher.

Never in the Race to Begin With

[Forgefather]

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.

She did one thing...

[tekrat]

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.

Re:One down.

[FlyHelicopters]

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.

Re:trump independent can lead to no one getting 27

[tnk1]

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.

Re:trump independent can lead to no one getting 27

[rmdingler]

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.

Didn't Want to Concede

[mentil]

It's actually just a pretext for her to spend more time with her family.

Re:One down.

[h33t l4x0r]

I still think the Marcobot has a good chance, they just need to patch his firmware before the next debate.

Re:One down.

[labnet]

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.

Re:Already???

[LDAPMAN]

Posting to undo mistaken moderation!

Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump

[FlyHelicopters]

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.

No need for an excuse to post politics

[wired_parrot]

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.

Re:One down.

[Curunir_wolf]

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.

Re:One down.

[Archangel Michael]

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.

Re:She had no chance, but still...

[Archangel Michael]

Hillary?

Re:Already???

[serviscope_minor]

I don't understand. First you say this:

Nothing she has ever done has qualified her to be president of the United States, not even close.

But then you contradict yourself and say this:

She's a repulsive person, an unrepentant liar, a dissembler, a demagogue, an arrogant authoritarian, a bully, a dreadful CEO, a horrible human being, and a living example of the "uncanny valley".

I don't get it. Are you trying to tell me she is or isn't qualified???

Re:Can you put a lid on the mysogonistic crap?

[serviscope_minor]

Would they call Hillary half the names they've called Hillary?

No, they'd call Hillary all the names they've called Hillary.

Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump

[Antique Geekmeister]

> 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...

Re:Important Stuff (For the discussion)

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

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.

Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump

[Alomex]

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.

Slogan dIdn't help

[formfeed]

Let me do to the US what I did to HP

- That was a really bad choice for a campaign slogan.

Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump

[Darinbob]

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.