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:Important Stuff (For the discussion)

[halivar]

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

Next.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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: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.

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: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: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.