Carly Fiorina

Carly Fiorina Will Likely Qualify for Main CNN Republican Debate

Rules change means that recent polling will count.

|

Fiorina
Youtube

Carly Fiorina will join ten other candidates on the main stage of CNN's Republican presidential debate, according to The Washington Post.

The news constitutes a major victory for Fiorina, who was presumed to be excluded from the main event on September 16. CNN modified its criteria to include more recent polling data, which will almost certainly give Fiorina the boost she needs to qualify.

Many conservative journalists and Republican activists—including Fiorina herself—had called on CNN to amend its original criteria, which heavily weighted early polling conducted before the Fox News debate on September 6. Fiorina was widely seen as the winner of the JV event, if not the entire night, and has enjoyed a bump in the polls ever since. [Related: Carly Fiorina Eviscerates Ghost of Donald Trump, Wins Fox News JV Presidential Debate] CNN's new criteria, which permits any candidate who cracked the top 10 in more recent polls to join the main debate, better reflects Fiorina's current level of popular support. It's likely that the main debate will now include 11 candidates: the lineup from the Fox News debate, plus Fiorina.

Earlier today, National Review published an editorial calling on CNN to let Fiorina into the debate:

There's no way to defend keeping her out of the network's September 16 debate because she was not in the top ten two months beforehand. So the main counterargument being made is that it would be unfair to change the rules a few weeks before the debate. But fairness to voters should matter more than fairness to candidates, and voters appear to prefer Fiorina to whichever candidate she would be bumping. 

Fiorina makes a strong case that she ought to be allowed to participate in the next debate. CNN should relent.

Relent they have.

It will be interesting to see whether Fiorina is more successful than her rivals at challenging Donald Trump. During the earlier debate, in which Fiorina and Trump did not appear together, she lambasted him for taking phone calls from Clintons. Trump, meanwhile, has tweeted that listening to her "gives him a massive headache," and "she has zero chance."

NEXT: 5 Things to Know About Congress Taking On the Iran Nuclear Deal

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It will be interesting to see whether Fiorina is more successful than her rivals at challenging Donald Trump.

    “Interesting” is a bit of a stretch.

    1. What, Hugh? The Thunderdome can be interesting. Especially when someone is actually fighting a retard, like in that movie with that guy who hates juice. I mean Jews.

      1. That new transfer student, Johnny Hitler? No one hates juice like he does.

        1. Johnny Hitler?!? You know him?!?

          1. You know who else knew a Johnny?…

          2. No, but he’s sooooooo cool!

            1. Look! Johnny Hitler is messing with Mr. Teacherman!

      2. The only thing more tedious than watching empty suits hurling empty phrases at each other is watching pathetic partisan children going Full Sportsbar in arguing how their guy is number one, and all others are number two or lower.

        1. I don’t know, they’re pretty equally tedious.

        2. Yeah but deep dish ducks

          1. Sucks

            Damn autocorrect

        1. It’s not pig shit. It is energy

    2. What’s even more interesting is how well challenging trump on stage worked for Paul. She’s not going to go after trump. Why should she? Bush donors hope she will, they want her to be bush’s bitch. Knock off Bush, make the large corporate donors stop supporting him.

  2. Pretty clear I’m the only one here pleased to hear this bit of good news. Hope she does well…

    1. You’re not the only one, but I hate that she is in favor of E-verify.

      1. Is there a problem with E-verify specifically, or do you oppose the idea of verifying if a person is a legal resident? Just wondering…

        1. Both.

          1. OK. Care to elaborate? Not trying to be a dick, just not that familiar with how E-verify works or the implications of such a system.

            1. The prospect gives the employer their name and SSN. Employer checks it vs a national database. The response comes back as match or name does not match SSN. One of the practical problems is that if the database has an error, you can’t find a legal job and as we all know, massive government databases never have errors. Another is that there are false negatives from slight differences in spelling – especially if your name has spaces, accent marks or dashes in it. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar vs Kareem Abdul Jabbar for instance. While Kareem’s problem could be readily identified, other names may have more difficulty getting resolved.

              Some don’t like it because they don’t like Big Brother looking over their shoulder on who they hire. That is an entirely different complaint than the basic functionality of the system.

              1. Why does Lew Alcindor need a job?

                1. Because you can’t drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes forever.

                  1. You tell your father to try that.

                  2. Lanier? Is that the famous Will Lanier who played for the Detroit Listons?

              2. One of the practical problems is that if the database has an error, you can’t find a legal job

                Bullshit. You have 8 business days to appeal and the employer can’t deny you employment until the appeal is resolved.

                http://www.uscis.gov/e-verify/…..nfirmation

                IMPORTANT: Your employer cannot take adverse action against you, including – terminating employment, suspending employment, withholding pay or training, delaying a start date or otherwise limiting employment because of your decision to contest a TNC or because your E-Verify case is still pending with DHS or SSA.

                1. Yay, more red tape and employment law to navigate

                2. And if the employer wants to get rid of them for totally unrelated reasons?

                  1. Then libertarians would totally support that employer’s right to do so.

                    I thought your argument was that e-verify doesn’t allow employers to employ the people they want. Now it’s morphed to evil employers are going to discriminate? I didn’t come here to nail jello to a wall.

                    1. No, you came here to justify more government intrusion into our lives. Fuck off slaver.

                    2. No, you came here to justify more government intrusion into our lives.

                      Yeah, we have to keep the current libertarian paradise that we have!

            2. Cato has a bunch of stuff on e-verify, e.g.:

              http://www.cato.org/publicatio…..ng-mandate

              (Summary. There are links to the full study at the bottom of the screen)

        2. Both. No one should ever have to ask their government for permission to employ someone or be employed.

          1. You have to ask the government for a Social Security card before you’re allowed to work. I don’t like that either, but the precedence has been set. And I would like to be sure that someone, somewhere isn’t using my Social Security number to work here illegally. It happened to a friend of mine, and it was a nightmare for him to clear up. That’s something the pro-illegal people don’t like to talk about.

            1. Sorry, you’ll have to find a way to fight SS# fraud without infringing on the rights of others. I might recommend fighting for abolition of SS.

              1. How does E-verify infringe on anyone’s rights?

                1. Are you kidding me? If I have to ask permission to take a job, then my rights are infringed full end.

                  1. You do realize, Cyto, that there are certain jobs that people actually want to know who you really are before they will trust you with the type of data you’ll be working with?

                    What job did you get turned down for because of E-verify? Provide some examples of this great scourge on mankind?

                    1. “Well only some people will get screwed by this.” -Hyperion’s ultra-weaksauce “argument”

                    2. “Well only some people will get screwed by this.” -Hyperion’s ultra-weaksauce “argument”

                      My argument is weak sauce? I’m giving examples of my own experience. You’re not giving any facts. I’m giving you plenty of opportunities.

                      I’m not a fan of E-verify. I just don’t give a fuck, but if it’s so damn EVUL, I want to know why and I want examples besides because I said so.

                2. “Right to work” is not just a phrase invented by people who hate unions. Your labor is the most important thing you own.

            2. Antilles, take a step back, pause, and look at what you wrote, above.

              We need to give an ID# to work. Your friend’s ID number was stolen, and he went through hell. So the solution is… an even MORE important ID number, without which it is even LESS possible to live in America. You’re fighting the problem of stolen ID by increasing demand for IDs. That’s not how supply and demand works.

              You know why SS# theft works? Because bureaucracy doesn’t. You cannot prevent people from evading the rules by passing more rules. Doing so simply increases the marginal value of evading the rules entirely.

              1. SS doesn’t work at all, mostly. All of the illegals here in MD have fake numbers, no one ever checks it as far as I know. They want the cheap labor and those taxes.

              2. So how do you propose to solve the problem of identity fraud, without going back to the days when you could only get a decent job or get credit from somebody who knew your family.

                1. Blockchains? Whether or not I have a solution does not in any way justify a horrible ‘solution’ like E-verify.

                2. Thank you for your question, it allows me to seamlessly talk my way into a LifeLock commercial, without the radio audience even noticing at first.

                3. So how do you propose to solve the problem of identity fraud, without going back to the days when you could only get a decent job or get credit from somebody who knew your family.

                  You’re mixing two unrelated things together: credit, and getting a job.

                  People will still steal IDs to use in credit fraud. That’s a separate issue (and one e-Verify doesn’t address).

                  As for getting a job, you seem to be implying that the current regime (requiring a SS#, etc) somehow makes it easier to get “a decent job” than it was back in “the days”. That’s exactly backwards; the government requirements placed on employers when hiring are what makes it harder to find a decent job.

                  But the solution’s pretty straightforward, and implied by my comment above: lower the demand for proving your identity. Lower demand for stolen ID, lower prices for stolen ID… fewer people eager to supply stolen ID.

                  1. Yeah because the only demand for identity theft is by illegal workers. No one would ever do it to commit fraud. Jesus fucking Christ you are stupid Don. We need a new word to describe you. Stupid is not strong enough.

                  2. No, I’m saying that the existence of a unique identifying number for every person in the country makes it possible to verify creditworthiness and conduct background checks without having personal knowledge of the person and their family. Saying we shouldn’t use SSNs for identification is missing the point — you need some sort of unique ID to have such capabilities, and whatever it is is going to be the target of identity fraud.

            3. Hey, I wouldn’t mind someone else fraudulently “paying in” to my SS “acc’t”. It may not legally be an acc’t, but benefits are calculated based on pay-in.

          2. Saw your link to Mulcair and that you’d vote for him.

            You’re certifiable, know that?

            You’re acting like those boobs in Alberta.

            1. You need to calm down and learn how to read. Unless I accidentally a word, I explicitly said that I would not vote Mulcair but merely that I would sooner vote Mulcair than Harper.

              1. So. Same thing. My point is, you shouldn’t even be considering it.

                AND I AM CALM.

          3. It is not asking for permission, it is asking for information. i.e. is this person in front of me attempting to commit identity fraud.

            1. It is not asking for permission, it is asking for information. i.e. is this person in front of me attempting to commit identity fraud.

              You have the right to ascertain that information, but I’m unsure by what logic one would claim that a taxpayer-funded government program is the best or necessary means of doing so.

              1. Because the American people have a joint economic interest in preventing fraud. It’s as important as roads.

            2. That’s just word games. If the government requires you do ____ before you are allowed to work for a willing employer, you need the government’s permission to work.

              Look at it this way: if you and your employer both don’t feel like using e-Verify, are you both free to tell the government to get stuffed and go through with the hire anyway? If the answer isn’t “yes”, there’s a fundamental problem there. The same holds true if the employer is “willing” only because of government coercion, e.g. “you don’t have to use e-Verify, but if you don’t there will be Consequences”.

              1. No, you’re the one playing word games. Permission is something that can be given or withheld at will. That’s not the case with e-Verify. If you are a citizen or green card holder the govt cannot stop the employer from hiring you.

                1. “Because the American people have a joint economic interest in preventing fraud. It’s as important as roads.”

                  Is this a joke? It’s impossible to discern between serious and joking with this clown.

                  No, your ‘joint interest’ does not justify your invasions of my dealings anymore that the joint interest against terrorism justifies going through people’s phone records without a record. Get rekt.

                2. Sure it can. All it has to do is say, through incompetence or malice, “he’s not a citizen”.

                  You’re living in a fantasy world where we’ve governed by God or some other omniscient and benevolent entity. Meanwhile I’m living in a world where I can get audited or prosecuted if I donate to the “wrong” political parties.

                  And why do you want to give these people more power? To “prevent fraud”, which e-Verify doesn’t even do. e-Verify’s response to fraud detection is… to do nothing. To let the perp know they’ve been detected, so they know to get a fresh stolen ID.

                  1. All it has to do is say, through incompetence or malice, “he’s not a citizen”.

                    There’s an appeals process as I outlined above which takes care of mistakes.

                    Any evidence you have that a citizen has been denied a job due to e-Verify would be welcome.

        3. My issue with E-verify that it’ll be a huge vacuum of money that will never be 100% effective. Citizens and legal residents will be denied employment because of flaws in the data (and God knows how long/difficult it will be for you to correct a flawed record; in the meantime, you have lost the job) while it will not stop employers from continuing to employ those outside of the system through under-the-table payments or outright fraud.

          1. Also, I have to agree with Cyto: you shouldn’t have to ask the government for permission to pay somebody for employee services.

            1. shouldn’t have to ask the government for permission

              As I said previously, you have to ask the government for a Social Security number before you’re allowed to work.

              1. One evil does not justify a subsequent evil.

              2. Um, no. You can work under the table for cash. It’s easy enough. I’ve done it plenty of times.

          2. Mandatory e-verify is as bad as Obamacare.

            1. “Mandatory e-verify is as bad as Obamacare.”

              As far as obnoxious comparisons go, this is up there with Adam Lanza

              1. God that is incredibly dumb. E-verify doesn’t make me pay for anything that I don’t want or fuck up the healthcare of 350 million people. Worst.comparison.ever.

                1. If you don’t like E-verify then it makes you pay for something you don’t want. It may not fuck up the healthcare system but it can and will fuck with the employment of millions. My excellent analogy stands, and I will whip it out again.

                  1. Cyto, if E-verify is fucking up the employment opportunities of millions, can you please explain to me why there are so many illegal aliens employed here in MD? They have fake SS numbers and they are not using E-verify. It’s only going to fuck up your employment chances if you are seeking a high level job and are not who you say you are. Maybe in other states, this is different. I mean, do you have to go through E-verify to pick oranges in FL? I don’t know. Being the guy who is the expert on this world impoverishing horror of a plague which is E-verify, I am expecting you to explain this.

                  2. My excellent analogy stands, and I will whip it out again

                    The analogy is as microscopic as your dick.

              2. For Cytotoxic, anything in furtherance of invasion is good. Whether it’s American forces invading and occupying nations abroad or citizens of another nation invading and occupying a Western govt.

                He’s probably fapping to the news that 800,000 Syrians are invading Germany, equal to a full percentage point population influx, in a single year.

                1. Well they deserve it for invading the Western Roman Empire under the same pretext!

                2. ERM A GERD FOREIGERNS INVADING MUH COUNTRY

                  Congrats you’ve brought in the dumbest fucking immigration talking point ever.

                  Germany is quite lucky to get all those refugees. It will probably make Germany freer in 20 years.

                  1. It will probably make Germany freer in 20 years.

                    Yes, because importing millions of people from areas of the world that are characterized by some of the worst rights abuses on the planet and have even once in their history been governed by anything short of fascist tyranny will obviously result in greater freedom to their host country.

                    Germany has become the preferred destination for countless refugees hoping for more generous benefits and a faster asylum process.

                    1. Source for last quote. Surprised that the LA Times let the mask slip there.

                    2. Cato has done the study, unlike you and your ilk. Countries with greater immigrant populations in 1990 were economically freer come 2011, regardless of immigrant makeup. You lose.

                    3. Cato has done the study, unlike you and your ilk. Countries with greater immigrant populations in 1990 were economically freer come 2011, regardless of immigrant makeup.

                      Apparently you’ve not heard the terms “post hoc ergo propter hoc” or “correlation does not equal causation” before. Unsurprising for someone who ends every comment with all the wit and charm of a petulant child.

                      Keep digging, Veruca.

                    4. Countries with greater immigrant populations in 1990 were economically freer come 2011

                      If you mean they were freer in 2011 than countries that had lower immigrant populations in 1990, that’s pretty much the dictionary definition of selection bias. 1990 is a particularly suspicious year as there were massive migrations from the former Communist bloc into the west that year, so you’re basically comparing the economic freedom in 2011 of the US, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe to Russia and other former communist countries. Which is just saying that countries that were more free in 1990 remained more free in 2011.

                  2. Germany is quite lucky to get all those refugees. It will probably make Germany freer in 20 years.

                    Yeah, maybe they’ll be lucky enough to have a massive child rape scandal just like Rotterham.

                  3. Yeah Germany is lucky. Wow. You need less more than Shreek.

                3. I’m sorry, Sudden, but you MUST be lying.

                  See, I know this because e-Verify prevents problems like that, and Germany has had the equivalent of e-Verify for many years.

                  I mean, I *guess* one of those libertarian radicals might say something crazy like “that’s because those systems don’t work”, but we all know they only say that because they hate America.

                  1. See, I know this because e-Verify prevents problems like that, and Germany has had the equivalent of e-Verify for many years.

                    It does only if the employer uses it. Not all employers do. Laws aren’t magic.

                  2. Why do you think they want asylum? Once they are granted refugee status, Germany has to house and feed them, while they are not obligated to (in fact, may well be banned from) work. So they can operate on cash basis while getting benefits, and Germans are not allowed to deport them no matter what.

          3. I have a little experience with E-verify since I’ve had to use it several times to be able to work for certain clients.

            I remember one time that I was living in a certain state and the idiots spelled my name wrong on my drivers license. almost 2 years it was like that an I didn’t notice it. So the lady from HR for one of my prospective clients calls me back and says ‘We can’t hire you, you’re an alias’. And I’m like ‘what’? ‘Yeah, you don’t exist’ she says.

            All it took to clear that up was for me to go to the MVA with my birth certificate and have them fix it. Then the prospective client ran the E-verify again and guess what? I got the contract.

            E-verify will not keep you from getting work if you are indeed a citizen of a permanent resident. Anyone who says otherwise, shut up.

            1. citizen OR permanent resident.

            2. Not interested in the hassle thanks kay bye. Further, your anecdote is not that convincing.

              1. Well, give us yours. What’s your experience with E-verify that you know it’s so bad? Waiting…

            3. … wait, was that supposed to be an argument FOR e-Verify?

              1. I myself am not making an argument FOR E-verify. Cyto is making an argument against it. He’s in fact, saying that it’s as bad as Obamacare. I’m asking him to explain that. He either cannot or is unwilling to.

                1. Thing about E-verify is that when we’re talking about washing dishes or picking vegetables, jobs that most Americans are too proud to do, then it doesn’t matter. It’s easier for the employer to pay cash than to do things legally. It only really matters for professional jobs or for large employers who can eat the cost. But for many small businesses, E-verify is a joke. They don’t care.

                  I’ve seriously been considering asking some of the mom & pop restaurants around here if they’ll hire me under the table to do some weekend shit-work. Scrubbing floors and stuff like that. Work that the kids they legally employ will spend more time bitching about than actually doing. I’ll get it done, not bitch, and take some cash for my trouble.

                  As it is if I do it legally, because of my income by the end of the year half of that legal ten bucks an hour goes down the income tax memory hole. Fuck that. It’s cheaper for both me and the employer to do it illegally.

                  1. What I was trying to say, sarc, is that I don’t know or have ever even heard of one person that E-verify has caused to not get a job. And yet, here Cyto is acting like it’s the worst thing to happen in history next to the Holocaust. Can’t back it up, but still, can someone please provide some of these E-verify horror stories? Wast of time and money? Maybe. But where’s the horrific human rights violations I’m hearing about?

    2. I still have a hangover from her awful 2010 Senate campaign, but I’m glad she’s in. One less bible thumper on stage.

    3. Would CNN have amended their rules to accommodate a man? Maybe Paul? I think they just want a big viewer rating hoping her and trump will go at it.

    4. People here should be loving this, “Under the new formula, Mr. Paul, Mr. Kasich or Mr. Christie could be bumped to the earlier debate.”

  3. I wonder which candidate they’ll take time from to make room for her.

    1. I don’t understand why they don’t just take the 10 ten from polls released after the last debate.

      1. ugh – “top 10”

  4. I bet Carly’s pussy doesn’t look like a squeezed-out lemon half that’s been sitting in the sun for a week like a certain Democrat candidate’s probably looks like.

    1. That’s lovely, Warren.

      And I was just sitting down with some BBQ.

    2. Is this your weird version of which candidate would you rather have a beer with?

      1. It wasn’t.

    3. side by side comparison

      http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/med…..880181.jpg

    4. I bet Carly’s pussy doesn’t look like a squeezed-out lemon half that’s been sitting in the sun for a week like a certain Democrat candidate’s probably looks like.

      Are you saying that’s bad? That sounds pretty delicious to me.

  5. I’m not sure America is smart enough to vote a woman like her with her experience into office. Otherwise, I bet the other candidates would be falling all over themselves to get her to commit to being on their ticket already.

    Even if she’s a liability on the ticket for being wealthy and having run a major corporation (the unpardonable sin), any smart candidate should want her in his or her administration. If I were the next Republican President, I’d want her for my White House Chief of Staff if I could get her.

    And I’d want her opinion on everything–from priority setting and execution to management and personnel decisions. I don’t know that we’ll ever get anybody as smart and competent as she is interested in politics again in our lifetimes.

    1. Really Ken? Going a little overboard there aren’t we? Her time at HP was not marked by great success. Further, she supports E-verify. EVUL

      1. Oh yes it was.

        She got a lot of bad press because she was hired on just before the big tech bust, and everybody’s expectations about selling PCs through brick and mortar retail channels–like HP’s p/e–was unreasonably high.

        Hindsight’s 20/20. Given the cards she was dealt and what she knew at the time, she should have done exactly what she did. And, anyways, some of the greatest management feats in history are in the service of lost causes.

        More qualified than anyone running as a Republican? She’s more qualified to be in the White House than anyone who’s been in the White House since before World War II–how’s that?

        1. 1) HP was outperformed by basically all of its competitors. That eliminates the ‘tech crunch’ excuse.

          2) Buying Compaq was stupid, no matter your rationalizations.

          1. Exactly. She ran HP poorly.

            1. It was partly her fault, but the board was screwed up as well during that period. HP was having an identity crisis after they spun out Agilent (a decision that predated her).

              1. I know from first-hand experience (a contract job) that HP was majorly screwed up before Fiorina took control. My exact thought circa 1998 was: “This company is doomed!”

          2. “HP was outperformed by basically all of its competitors. That eliminates the ‘tech crunch’ excuse.”

            All its’ competitors?

            You mean Dell?

            You mean Apple?

            Are you counting the value unlocked when they spun off Agilent? That idea predated Carly, but she didn’t stop it–and all that value that went into the shareholders’ pockets, too.

            “Buying Compaq was stupid, no matter your rationalizations.”

            Does that mean you can’t be convinced by reason? What does that mean?

            The PC business became a commodity business before HP’s shareholders realized it–but not before Carly realized it. If you’re gonna be in a commodity business, you want to have the largest economy of scale. It isn’t Carly’s fault that HP’s p/e and HP’s stockholders’ expectations were putting an unreasonable multiple on HP’s earnings–before Carly got there.

            The tech bubble was exactly that–a bubble. The creation of the bubble wasn’t Carly’s fault. The bubble bursting wasn’t Carly’s fault. She played a great game given the circumstances.

            1. Yes, I mean Dell and Apple. They amongst various others beat HP during that time.

              Your explanation does not justify the Compaq purchase. What value did they bring n that justified the price tag? Could they not have bought a different company that didn’t suck so bad?

              1. Apple did not beat HP during that time. Apple was on Microsoft led life support.

                Who else was out there making PCs that would help HP achieve the kind of economy of scale they needed to really make a go of it?

                Again, Compaq was taken over by HP in 2001. China hadn’t even joined the WTO yet. Hindsight is 20/20, but the world of possibilities you’re imagining didn’t exist at the time.

                Short answer to the question of whether they could have bought another company? The answer is no.

                P.S. It’s generally better to buy a company when they suck, especially if the reason they suck is because of their management.

      2. Cyto, can you pass E-verify? There really has to be a reason for your seemingly weird hatred of it. It sounds personal.

        1. My ‘weird’ hatred of it is shared by many others here Hyperion. It’s called ‘being a libertarian’. You should try it.

          1. Why do you hate it? Provide some examples of the misery and suffering it has caused. No one here in MD that I have ever heard of had to even use it unless it’s for a high level job. Maybe I’m wrong, but comparing it to Obamacare is completely crazy.

            1. It is not a requirement yet, so the harm is not as great. I guess we’ll have to pass it to find out what’s in it? Is that right Mrs Pelosi?

              1. Well, in fact, there is no harm known if you cannot provide even one example of why it is so bad. And to compare it with Obamacare, that is careless at best.

        2. Cytotoxic (as you should refer to him, because there’s another guy here with the nick of Cyto) feels that it is a violation of human rights to stop any immigration. He’s claimed that it’s “never” a bad thing. So trying to stop millions of Latin American peasants from moving here is “evil.” When they burden our bankrupt welfare state, well, we simply need to eliminate the welfare state. But not first. No, we just open the borders, figure out how to eliminate the welfare state while demands on it are increasing, and everything will turn out fine. He thinks The Camp of the Saints is a feel-good story.

          1. “When they burden our bankrupt welfare state”

            It’s well-established that they don’t. There is no correlation between welfare populations of states and monies spent on welfare.

            1. Bull. I keep posting links to the contrary, and you just ignore them. It’s not a coincidence that CA has so many illegals and so much welfare spending and so much poverty. These things go together.

    2. I prefer Fiorina to most of the asses up there, but that’s a bit much.

    3. Even if she’s a liability on the ticket for being wealthy and having run a major corporation

      “… into the ground”.

      I’m just finishing that sentence the way most voters will. Both stockholders and employees were worse off at the end of her tenure than at the beginning of it, and HP’s main competitors outperformed it both in growth and in stock value.

      You can argue that she made the most of a bad situation, and that could well be true (although I don’t see how the Compaq buy can be seen as anything other than a mistake). Unfortunately, “it would have been EVEN WORSE if it wasn’t for me” is a tough line to sell in politics, especially when you got a nice fat payday for your work.

      1. “It would have been worse” is standard political claptrap. Fiorina’a problem is that up until now she wasn’t a politician and was actually expected to be accountable.

      2. “Unfortunately, “it would have been EVEN WORSE if it wasn’t for me” is a tough line to sell in politics, especially when you got a nice fat payday for your work.”

        Oh, I don’t know. It’s worked pretty well for the current administration.

        1. Tarp, gm bailout, stimulus….

        2. Yeah, no. Obama ran in 2008 on a platform of, basically, “Bush sucked, and I have no record so please project your hopes and dreams onto me”. He ran in 2012 on a platform of “we’re better off now than we were 4 years ago”.

          Fiorina can’t run on her record, and she HAS a record so she can’t run as a blank slate who gives pretty speeches. What worked for Obama will not work for her.

          1. What worked for Obama can never work for anyone again, ever. No one can ever be the first Black President again. And first woman, latino, gay, transvestite, etc, etc, are not the equal of that. Historic moment that cannot be repeated. Got the guy 2 terms also. Not the Republicans didn’t help by running the Pale Rider of the Apocalypse and the Romulan, back to back. Stupid Party.

            1. What worked for Obama can never work for anyone again, ever.

              It is working for Trump and Carson even as we speak.

              Whether it can carry them all the way to the nomination is anybody’s guess.

          2. Obama ran on “I told you Iraq would be a huge mistake.”

            Hil-dog couldn’t say that.

      3. It is hard to tout your record as a CEO when shareholders, customers, and employees each despised you. HP lost their culture because of her. They sell boxes now.

        1. HP is one of the most exciting companies out there right now. They are researching 3d printing and how to create a whole new computer architecture called The Machine. The only thing more outrageous than your imbecility is my acting like its outrageous.

          1. That’s true and PB is an idiot, but none of that is due to her.

            1. True, I just wanted to fisk PB.

          2. Read something neutral about her:

            http://www.bloombergview.com/a…..rship-file

            She blamed her firing on sexism. She was a total failure as CEO and HP wrote off $14 billion in losses due to her.

            1. Still, she’s probably responsible for fewer deaths than Hillary….

        2. “They sell boxes now.”

          Last time PB was complaining that Carly sold off their best and most innovative unit–not realizing it was spun off to shareholders, they profited mightily, and if all that value was unlocked by spinning off a unit, it was the best thing that could have happened for shareholders.

          If the PC was going to be a commodity business, they were smart to go for Compaq and be the low cost producer and go for economy of scale. That people like Carly caught on that PCs were becoming a commodity business before HPs shareholders did is further evidence of her excellent performance.

          1. Agilent was a large successful IPO set in motion before she got there. Unfortunately she later pissed away that money:

            The fundamental and overpowering problem here is that HP’s shareholders paid $24 billion in stock to buy Compaq and in exchange got relatively little value. In fact, so little value was secured that accounting rules could force HP to write off a chunk of the $14.5 billion in goodwill assets it set up on its books after the deal? a write-off of goodwill at HP would say as clearly as anything can that, financially, this merger has been a lemon.

            Same link as above – Bloomberg.

            1. “Unfortunately she later pissed away that money”

              You’re an ignoramus.

              Agilent was spun off to shareholders, and they were free to keep it or sell it as they pleased. They had other options, too.

              See for yourself:

              http://h30261.www3.hp.com/faq/…..hares.aspx

              Talking with Shrike about stock performance is like talking evolution with a creationist.

              1. She pissed away $14 billion.

                1. Two threads later, and Shrike still doesn’t understand what it means to spin a company off to shareholders.

      4. “Both stockholders and employees were worse off at the end of her tenure than at the beginning of it, and HP’s main competitors outperformed it both in growth and in stock value.”

        She was hired on just before the internet bubble burst. Does that mean everyone who’s stock was worse off after the crash was a bad CEO?

        Hell no.

        Her main competitors had advantages HP didn’t have. Dell wasn’t selling through brick and mortar retail and Apple was in such bad shape, Gates sunk money into it just so he could keep it afloat and fight the charge in his EU antitrust case that Microsoft wasn’t a monopoly.

        The last buggy whip manufacturer was the best damn managed buggy whip manufacturer anybody had ever seen, and given the situation she went through, her performance was amazing. We’d be lucky to have her as President–show the world what competent leadership looks like again…

        Unfortunately, we’re not smart enough as a nation to vote for Carly.

        1. You know, Ken.

          I agree with this assessment.

          And the last sentence in particular.

          I seem to recall her tenure at HP was during a rather tumultuous time not necessarily of her doing. Why, one can say she inherited some problems. Remind you of someone?

          I’ve heard her a lot recently. She’s got it together. More than anyone I’ve heard on either side. May not be a libertarian’s wet dream but as far as not being an idiot, she’s pretty good.

          1. I’ve heard her a lot recently. She’s got it together. More than anyone I’ve heard on either side. May not be a libertarian’s wet dream but as far as not being an idiot, she’s pretty good.

            This really is why her track record is relevant. She’s a great saleswoman, above all for Carly but she sucks at actually executing. She couldn’t manage it at HP, was totally tone deaf about the culture she joined, and crashed and burned by her own hand. She has zero political experience and would quickly be outmaneuvered if she actually won an election.

            1. Maybe this is why – her inexperience – she’s not polling well?

            2. “She couldn’t manage it at HP, was totally tone deaf about the culture she joined, and crashed and burned by her own hand.”

              The people who think she tried to change a culture she didn’t understand and the people who think she couldn’t execute because she didn’t radically change the culture could have a fascinating debate–if only so many of them weren’t the exact same people.

              There wasn’t anything about their core business of making PCs that was about to get better–without going after economy of scale in a big way. So she did that. She went after that in Compaq. If the board didn’t like hearing from Carly that they were stuck in a commodity business and then turned around and went after her–because they were stuck in a commodity business–then that’s on them. They were just trying to appease irrational shareholders with a scalp.

              Meanwhile, what was Carly supposed to do–refuse to sell PCs through their brick and mortar retail channels?

              Maybe she should have invented the iPhone years before Steve Jobs?

              Are you familiar with Leibniz? He reasoned that the universe we have is the best one God could have created–given what is possible. You, on the other hand, seem to want Carly to have created a company that wasn’t possible–not given the way the world was at that time.

              1. They were in a commodity business. The floor fell out from under it. No reason to shoot the messenger–certainly not just because she was right. And that’s basically what happened. She told them they were in a commodity business before they realized it, and then they blamed her for being right.

                Commodity businesses don’t get a multiple on their earnings like growth companies do. That wasn’t Carly’s fault either. She went into economy of scale mode, cost cutting mode, etc. She did exactly what she should have done–and she did did it over the objections of her board and her detractors.

                That is to her credit.

        2. “Her main competitors had advantages HP didn’t have. Dell wasn’t selling through brick and mortar retail and Apple was in such bad shape, Gates sunk money into it just so he could keep it afloat and fight the charge in his EU antitrust case that Microsoft wasn’t a monopoly.”

          You’ve listed one advantage for Dell and none for Apple or anyone else. You still haven’t come up with a single solid move by Carly! If Compaq was that move, they would have benefited from it. They made a sucky product. You can argue Carly wasn’t the main problem and no one could solve the main problems but 1) that still leaves Carly as a bad CEO and 2) HP is doing much better now, so something got solved by somebody.

          1. “You’ve listed one advantage for Dell and none for Apple or anyone else.”

            It wasn’t just an advantage for Dell; it was their whole business model. They saved a ton of money and time that way.

            Remember, too, that at the time Carly came on board at HP, China didn’t even join the WTO until early 2002–after the tech bubble had burst and after Carly had been in charge at HP for years.

            Meanwhile, between the time Carly came on board and the time Carly left, Apple went from being a company with like a billion dollar market cap to having a market cap around a billion and a half. Jobs came back to Apple about the same time Carly took over HP, but Apple didn’t really start clicking until…

            It wasn’t even the iPod, really. The big difference started when Apple stopped using Motorola’s PowerPC architecture and started using Intel chips instead. They didn’t introduce iMacs with that architecture (that could easily dual boot Windows) until 2006 or so–after Carly was already on the way out the door. In other words, the Apple explosion you remember didn’t happen on Carly’s watch. And the reason it didn’t happen sooner is because that stuff wasn’t possible before.

        3. She was hired on just before the internet bubble burst. Does that mean everyone who’s stock was worse off after the crash was a bad CEO?

          That’s the usual excuse offered by her fans, yes. Unfortunately it runs into the reality that HP underperformed other *tech* stocks during her tenure as well — it fell more and recovered less.

          As for your list of competitors — I notice that you listed computer firms. Doubling down on PCs at the expense of the company cash cow (printers) was, of course, the screw-up that ultimately led to her getting sacked.

          1. “That’s the usual excuse offered by her fans, yes.”

            “A carjacker shot me in the chest three times” may be an excuse, but it’s also a legitimate explanation for why you didn’t make it to work.

        4. Apple was in such bad shape, Gates sunk money into it just so he could keep it afloat

          Wrong. Apple was in bad shape, but Microsoft’s money was not a huge boost and the only reason they gave it was to keep Office running on Macs.

          1. The main reason was to keep Apple afloat long enough to get through their antitrust case through the European Union and to influence their antitrust case here in the U.S.

            “Observers say the deal, while a shot in the arm for Apple, also may help Microsoft by keeping antitrust charges at bay. Apple represents one of the only alternatives to Microsoft’s Windows and the Microsoft-Intel hegemony.”

            http://www.cnet.com/news/micro…..-in-apple/

            I mean, why wouldn’t that be a consideration?

            Would you really take the position that keeping their only viable OS competitor afloat–despite antitrust cases against them both in the U.S. and Europe–was just a coincidence?!

      5. They’re also going to bring up how HP’s stock shot up after she was fired. Whether or not that was her fault (and I can hardly blame her for being CEO during the dotcom bubble popping), it’s going to be used as an indication that she won’t be able to manage the country.

    4. I’m not sure America is smart enough to vote a woman like her with her experience into office

      Really? She got her ass kicked in a Senate election during a Republican wave year. She doesn’t have a chance in hell in the general.

      Carly’s running for VP or a cabinet slot, she just doesn’t want to admit it yet.

      1. “She got her ass kicked in a Senate election during a Republican wave year.”

        If Carly losing to Barbara Boxer in California means Barbara Boxer would make a better President than Carly in your mind, then you need to look closely at your thought process.

  6. Why would any libertarian like her?

    Rand Paul, sure. Carly is just another Big Gov GOP hack.

    1. Why would anybody pay attention to you?

      1. You can’t answer that question.

        You just want to vote for Team Red Vag.

        1. Hey scumbag, are you still standing by your proclamation that Jeb is going to win the nomination?

          1. Speaking of a Team Red Vag…

    2. Uh oh, Tulpy-Poo is lonely again! Did you ruin another Realdoll again, Tulpy-Poo? Waiting for the next delivery?

      1. Remember, few things cause more rage in the minds of lefties than one of their sacred protected classes playing for Team Red.

    3. One might just as well ask the question why the ButtPlug is supporting Hillary. But we’ll let the ButtHead explain. I’m sure it’s going to be good.

      1. I don’t support the H-Dog, but you know that. Dems don’t have a decent candidate this time.

        I would vote for Obama v.III and get some more of this delicious gridlock if I could. Gridlock is the best we can do – Dem Potus and GOP House.

        1. So, when you’re looking for references to yourself in the comments, do you just ctrl-f “Butt”, or do you actually scan through everything visually searching for “Butt”?

  7. i just think this is terribly unfair to Bobby Jindal

    1. *snort…. guffaw…..*

      1. JINDAL FOR THE WIN…DAL IN 2016

        1. Is he NaanEstablishment enough for this cycle?

          1. He doesn’t try to curry favor with the powers-that-be

            1. His chana baji is….fucking saag man

            2. Hey Gilmore. I’ve got some light reading for you from the CEO of Walmart.

              My favorite part is when he says:

              “I’m also excited about an innovative program we’re launching for future associates that will allow you to join Walmart at $9 an hour or more next year, receive skills-based training for six months, and then be guaranteed at least $10 an hour upon successful completion of that program. We’re also strengthening our department manager roles and will raise the starting wage for some of these positions to at least $13 an hour this summer and at least $15 an hour early next year. There will be no better place in retail to learn, grow, and build a career than Walmart.”

              But I also like these quotes:

              “We also made a few changes aimed at productivity and efficiency.”

              “…and we’ll provide opportunities for further raises based on performance.”

              Sure, it’s all a cover for caving to the SJWs. And sure it might not work. But now we have a good indicator that Walmart is at least trying to attract better employees via higher wages and increase productivity via training. Well, we had a good indicator back in February, actually.

  8. she lambasted him for taking phone calls from Clintons. Trump … tweeted that listening to her “gives him a massive headache,” and “she has zero chance.”

    So, “Trump/Fiorina 2016”?

  9. Who seriously thinks Trump talking to Bill Clinton is going to be a problem?

    “I’m a rich powerful man other powerful people trip over themselves to talk to. It doesn’t mean I actually listen to them!” and his supporters go into a frenzy.

    1. His followers certainly don’t seem to care whether or not he gives bullshit answers.

    2. Giving money to the Clintons is more problematic for him than talking to Bill. Ultimately, his bat shit crazy ideas are his biggest liability, not any association he has with Bill or Hillary.

      1. The frightening thing is that they seem to like his bat shit crazy ideas.

        1. Are Carson’s gains coming at Trump’s expense?

          1. Carson is going for the more refined and polite batshit crazy voters.

            1. He’s also got the “I’m Republican and I’ll prove to you we’re not racists” vote down cold.

            2. Carson’s appeal is to SoCons and rural voters, so it’s not surprising he’s tied with Trump in Iowa right now. These are the same people that gave Santorum a bump before he faded out.

              He’s basically a nice-guy version of Trump and will get chewed to pieces if he rises any more in the polls.

      2. I don’t think most of his supporters actually know what his ideas are, beyond “fewer Mexicans in America”. They always talk about his tone and his strength and his attitude, not about what a great idea he had for balancing the budget or growing the economy.

        It is a cult of personality, just like Obama in the 2008 race.

        1. Unlike Obama, he’s not going to get above 25% of the vote in the GOP. His unfavorables are through the roof, even among Republicans and even with idiot right wing talk radio fawning over him.

          1. This is actually true.

          2. Well, Trump’s splitting the low information voter vote with Carson. If one drops out and endorses the other, who knows what’ll happen.

        2. Yeah it’s definitely not about the issues. I think he’s a spoiled child with no class but there is something to say for not apologizing every time someone gets their panties in a bunch. We do need more of that. I think a lot of republicans are tired of how their candidates have historically been treated by the media so the fact that he tells the media to kiss his ass gets a lot of hell yeahs. I think the media want’s him and Clinton in as long as possible because train wreaks sell.

          1. It’s been hilarious watching the media try to puzzle out why someone openly treating them and their shibboleths with contempt hasn’t sunk him in the polls yet. They really have no clue that most people outside the political/media bubble they live and operate in absolutely hates their guts and would rejoice if a mass die-off of that class took place.

    3. His poll numbers have jumped considerably since that was made public, so his fans clearly don’t care.

  10. Phew.

    More, er, tits.

    1. Was Christie not enough for you?

      1. Huckabee’s got some moobs too.

        1. I bet they jiggle when he plucks that bass

          1. That’s just got to be a euphemism.

      2. You people are just gross.

        Give me old lady tits.

  11. For a biped mammal…would.

    DEBATE!

  12. Trump, meanwhile, has tweeted that listening to her “gives him a massive headache,” and “she has zero chance.”

    A fair assessment. So CNN is changing the rules so Rand Paul doesn’t have to go squabble at the kids’ table?

    1. Why is that a fair assessment? I mean I get why Trump has a massive headache listening to her: she does what he does he does. Fiorina can bring the red meat like Trump does but she actually has a brain.

  13. I think I’m going to go play some Mad Max, where E-verify is NOT required to play.

  14. I always think of the Charlie commercial. She should remake it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Sn8H42FZcI

  15. The only candidate I like in this race is Bofa.

    1. Bofa who?

      1. Bofa Deez Nuts

        1. I am my own straight man and sock puppet…and possibly grandpa.

          1. It’s really too bad that you’re not funny.

            1. You know what’s funny? Those were literally my grandpa’s last words, “It’s really too bad that you’re not funny.”

  16. Quote of the day:

    “Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.” ?Napoleon Bonaparte

      1. Huh? I’m not Tony….

  17. Can’t link to it now, but the official emblem chosen for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics has been shown to be a complete ripoff of Belgian theatre emblem. Amazing the guy who designed it thought he could get away with it.

    1. He added a circle!?

      which makes it look more like a T, and of course…. red ball, Japan…. whoot whoot Amaratsu

      I think it would be awesome if they replaced it with one of those Manga Chicks-with-dicks

      But seriously though, i see how that might be some graphic-design thievery … but so what? (i don’t like it much in either case)… I mean, we steal greek architecture when we make monuments, we steal all sorts of iconography for random purposes… i guess in that case… why not just license it from the Belgian theatre if they really like it so much?

      1. I think what’s depressing about that is that normally this sort of simple-but-elegant design stuff is something the japanese particularly excel at. Its like not being able to get a decent steak in Omaha.

      2. Again, in case you missed it above…

        Hey Gilmore. I’ve got some light reading for you from the CEO of Walmart.

        My favorite part is when he says:

        “I’m also excited about an innovative program we’re launching for future associates that will allow you to join Walmart at $9 an hour or more next year, receive skills-based training for six months, and then be guaranteed at least $10 an hour upon successful completion of that program. We’re also strengthening our department manager roles and will raise the starting wage for some of these positions to at least $13 an hour this summer and at least $15 an hour early next year. There will be no better place in retail to learn, grow, and build a career than Walmart.”

        But I also like these quotes:

        “We also made a few changes aimed at productivity and efficiency.”

        “…and we’ll provide opportunities for further raises based on performance.”

        Sure, it’s all a cover for caving to the SJWs. And sure it might not work. But now we have a good indicator that Walmart is at least trying to attract better employees via higher wages and increase productivity via training. Well, we had a good indicator back in February, actually.

        1. re: Walmart

          so what? None of that has anything to do with your moronic presumption that mere-wage-hikes produce productivity growth by magic. AND your moronic presumption that Walmart has some great flexibility to alter their cost structure because “big rich company” or some

          Unless you plan to retract that stuff, everything else is so much handwaving.

          1. mere-wage-hikes produce productivity growth by magic

            I can’t retract something I never said. I told you numerous times yesterday that I never said that. Leave the Strawman alone. He’s had enough.

            Walmart has some great flexibility to alter their cost structure because “big rich company”

            I said something like “If anyone can afford to experiment with this, it’s Walmart”. Not because they’re a “big rich company”, but because their employees have very low productivity and wages. Again, you’re arguing against your own assumptions.

            1. great. I guess you made a very non-controversial, insubstantial point in a very inarticulate manner than. Congrats. the world has moved on.

              1. I just hope you’ll be more careful in the future. I had thought you were a pretty reasonable person up until yesterday. Did I just hit some pet peeve of yours or do you generally respond to any perceived disagreement with instant vitriol?

            2. Seriously Gilmore. Just calm down, read and comprehend first. You were in such a rush to call me an idiot that you didn’t even take the time to understand me first. You monitor will be happier when it has fewer flecks of anger-induced spittle covering it.

              1. “Just calm down”

                Said the person chasing me down to re-hash a point that no one thought had any merit yesterday.

                Forgive me if i’m not interested in the deeply interesting point you think is buried somewhere in your pony-pile.

                1. I didn’t chase you down just because you disagreed with me. I chased you down because, as I said, I had thought you to be a reasonable person up until yesterday. The anger you showed over a simple comment was rather unexpected. I mean, it’s not like I’m one of the usual trolls or something. I’m still left wondering what drives a person to that. Is it just the anonymity of the internet? Probably. Were you just having a bad day? Doubtful, because even now you’re throwing out the cheap insults.

                  Almost makes me feel sorry for Tony… but not really.

      3. If he had swiped the design for some domestic enterprise I’d understand his thinking he wouldn’t get caught. But the Olympics?!
        This is the above the fold story in the Yomiuri today. A small below the fold article on the crashing Nikkei. Priorities. *shakes head*

        1. Yeah, that is sort of insane. Which may lend some credence to the idea that he actually *did* come up with the idea completely independently.

          its not as crazy as it sounds. Minimalist design boils down to the same few things, often.

        2. I wouldn’t have known.

        1. Seems like Sano is quite the busy plagiarist if the article’s facts are correct.

      4. He actually shrunk the circle from the theater’s logo…

    2. “Amazing the guy who designed it thought he could get away with it.’

      It IS entirely possible that he had the same exact design idea.

      There’s only so many ways to make a “T” look interesting.

      1. Couldn’t them Nips just go a design a logo using their own squiggle letters?

        #BelgianSerifsMatter

        1. Olympic logos are pretty universally boring and instantly forgotten.

          The London 2012 one deserves some special regard because its just so completely batshit awful, but they went with it anyway

          1. Lisa Simpson. oh yeah.

            1. I think it even causes epilepsy in children. It has so many things going for it.

              1. Yep

                http://usatoday30.usatoday.com…..7402_x.htm

                “”LONDON (AP) ? An animated display of London’s jigsaw-style 2012 Olympics logo, which has drawn an unfavorable public response, was removed from an official Web site Tuesday following concern it could trigger epileptic seizures.

                Epilepsy Action, a British health charity, said 10 people had complained about the animation and some had suffered seizures….

                London’s Design Museum founder Stephen Bayley said the logo was “a puerile mess, an artistic flop and a commercial scandal.”

                Chief organizer Sebastian Coe claimed the graffiti-style design was created to draw the attention of young peopl. An official Web site shows flashing and moving images of the logo. In a departure from previous games, the logo has no visual imagery of the host city or country.””

            2. …After she was raped.

          2. Read HM’s link. Not the first time this guy has been busted for this.

            1. Ah.

              Well, still. It *was* possible… in theory

      2. I pity the fool that can’t make a T interesting!

    3. It could be an honest coincidence. The “stolen” part is all of three shapes. I guess the first step in art, like academia is to do a thorough review of the current state of the art.

  18. OT: Has this been posted here yet? Georgia cops respond to wrong house, enter home, kill dog, shoot homeowner and one of the cops.

    http://www.ajc.com/news/news/l…..inv/nnWKr/

    1. The cops shot one another?

      1. “officers responding to a burglary call went to the wrong home, shot the unarmed homeowner, killed his dog and wounded one of their own”

        That would be a Yes

    2. You guys and your anti cop rhetoric. I mean, shouldn’t the blame fall on the guy that actually had committed the crime, leading to the cops being called in the first place? If there were no criminals, cops wouldn’t have to shoot innocent people.

    3. Ed posted it at 8:41 with a h/t to Matt W.

      Missed it by that much.

  19. Sounds like some pretty serious business to me dude.

    http://www.Total-Privacy.tk

  20. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

    http://www.HomeJobs90.Com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.