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
Notice what isn't on the list of "important stuff"? Carly's presidential run.
Next.
... 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.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
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.
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.
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.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
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.
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
I still think the Marcobot has a good chance, they just need to patch his firmware before the next debate.
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)
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
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/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
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.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
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???
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
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...
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's