Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
HP United States Politics

Carly Is Out 581

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Carly Is Out

Comments Filter:
  • by ErikTheRed ( 162431 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @04:00PM (#51481913) Homepage

    (Peasants half-heartedly shout "yay!")

    • by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @04:12PM (#51482047)
      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.
      • by unixisc ( 2429386 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @04:22PM (#51482143)
        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
        • by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @04:40PM (#51482363)

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

          • by roc97007 ( 608802 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @05:04PM (#51482633) Journal

            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.)

            • by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @05:56PM (#51483137)

              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.

              • by roc97007 ( 608802 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @06:56PM (#51483513) Journal

                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.

                • by rthille ( 8526 )

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

                • by Dahamma ( 304068 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @10:26PM (#51484621)

                  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...

              • by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @07:11PM (#51483621)

                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.

              • 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 someon

        • by bondsbw ( 888959 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @04:46PM (#51482421)

          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.

          • by FlyHelicopters ( 1540845 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @04:59PM (#51482579)

            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)

            • 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. Employ

          • 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

        • by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @04:52PM (#51482485)
          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.
        • 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.

        • by dryeo ( 100693 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @05:36PM (#51482973)

          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/... [wikipedia.org]

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          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 conservativ
          • 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 A

        • by silentcoder ( 1241496 ) on Thursday February 11, 2016 @07:46AM (#51486183)

          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.

      • False Dichotomy choices D/R prevail, and continue to be foisted upon us by people trapped in a system they cannot see to escape from.

        Every Single one of the D and R candidates would be disastrous for the citizens of the USA.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        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 appropr

    • by mwvdlee ( 775178 )

      I'd sigh with relief if she ever even had a remote chance.
      As it stands, I'll just say "meh" and move on.

    • The question is who would they vote of instead now?
      If they go towards a more moderate candidate or a crazy nut?
      Fox News has done an excellent job at radicalizing the base, making sure Democrats are hated as godless communist who wants to control every aspect of your life.

      • 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.

        • 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 Trum
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        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.

  • She was pretty much already out. It's just formal because now it's far more expensive to ride along as a candidate.

    • by tnk1 ( 899206 )

      She was never "in", but up until now, there were no actual votes.

      You really don't pull out of a campaign before the first few primaries.

      Otherwise, you're letting the media and their polls tell you what you should be doing, and if you're a serious candidate, you are going to actually want to see what actual voters have to say about you. Most of the candidates are depending on these primaries to get them enough momentum with financers and supporters to continue their campaigns. That's why these first tiny s

      • by Alomex ( 148003 )

        You really don't pull out of a campaign before the first few primaries.

        Tell that to Perry and Graham, who pulled out before any primaries.

      • Actually, after the 2nd GOP debate on CNN, where she stood down Trump, she was 3rd in IA (behind Carson and Trump) and 2nd in NH (behind Trump). That was a good springboard to try and climb, but the only time she's entered the news has been when either Trump has berated her on her appearance, or when those ugly broads @ The View had vile things to say about her. Aside from that, the only place she did well was being outspoken against Planned Parenthood, but beyond that, she did nothing to increase her pro
  • Just a couple of days ago, on FNC, while protesting against being left out of that debate, she said that she's here to go all the way to Cleveland - w/ ground games in 12 states blah blah blah

    What I don't get is - I understand that people have egos, but when one is running for President, one has a list of achievements behind him/her, particularly if one is an outsider. The last thing that SHE did was the debacle @ HP, and given that SINCE THEN, she's done nothing, what made her think that she's right for

    • by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @04:19PM (#51482107)

      ... 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.

      • by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @06:56PM (#51483527) Journal

        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???

    • by swb ( 14022 )

      what made her think that she's right for this job?

      You could make an argument that nobody is "right" for this job and that the best possible qualification is somebody with excellent executive (the adjective, not the position) functioning skills and management ability. The President doesn't actually do very much but make decisions and usually based on information provided by extremely qualified specialists with decades of experience.

      The biggest inherent skills a President probably needs are, sadly, personal charisma and political intelligence.

    • by imidan ( 559239 )

      Just a couple of days ago, on FNC, while protesting against being left out of that debate, she said that she's here to go all the way to Cleveland - w/ ground games in 12 states blah blah blah

      They all tell these lies until they don't. I mean, Jeb! is babbling now about how he's a real candidate again because he broke into the double digits in New Hampshire. He's not going to make it, but he can't say that and keep his donors at the same time.

    • by tnk1 ( 899206 )

      I don't disagree with you on most of that, but Russia is most definitely our adversary. Maybe not in the sense of lobbing ICBMs at us on a hair trigger, but they're definitely working to improve their own position by harming ours. You can't look be looking at recent history and believe otherwise.

      Putin wants to restore the Russian Empire in some shape. That's not really something we're going to want to see. It's destabilizing and it's mostly due to their paranoia that they feel they need a buffer zone.

  • To deprive the United States of the same kind of leadership she offered while she was at HP is a true American tragedy.

  • by Forgefather ( 3768925 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @04:37PM (#51482327)

    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.

  • Those contributing that to the discussion sound like twisted little 14 year old boys trying to get the cred to join their neighborhood "hang out smoking outside the 7-11" gang.

  • by tekrat ( 242117 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @04:43PM (#51482387) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by mentil ( 1748130 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @04:56PM (#51482555)

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

  • by wired_parrot ( 768394 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2016 @05:26PM (#51482861)

    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.

Disc space -- the final frontier!

Working...