Carly Fiorina

Fiorina's Feminism Strategy

Fiorina's been playing now-you-see-it, now-you-don't with the so-called gender card. Will it work?

|

Gage Skidmore/Flickr

Early female interlopers into male-dominated arenas tend to stake their claim on the territory in one of two ways: by making femaleness central to their self-marketing and appeal (i.e., "Token Conservative Chick") or by trying hard to avoid drawing any attention to it at all. The tipping point for gender progress may be said to come when women in that industry are allowed to acknowledge their XX-chromosomes without being totally defined by them. In walking this third path with skill, former Hewlett Packard CEO and current Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina may just signal the dawn of a new era in GOP gender politics.

As the party's only female candidate—and therefore the de facto foil to Hillary Clinton—Fiorina is uniquely poised (and pressured) to embody conservative's tension between not wanting to be the "war on women" party and a long-held aversion to both feminism and "identity politics." 

So far, she's been making it look easy, speaking as fluently on issues like sexism and maternity-leave mandates as she does on economic issues and foreign policy. Take or leave Fiorina's agenda, but she's no "I can see Russia from my house" lightweight.

Relegated to the "kids table" during the first round of Republican debates, Fiorina was widely declared the "winner" of the second round main debate, a three-hour spectacle that aired on CNN Wednesday evening. "Regardless of whether you liked the content of her answers, she seemed more polished and prepared than any other candidate on stage," wrote Reason senior editor Peter Suderman in a debate summary. (The whole transcript is available here, in case you want to judge for yourself.) Her biggest asset was coming across as intelligent, even-tempered, and possessed of a confidence borne from knowing her shit rather than overabundant ego—making her a vivid outlier on a stage shared with the likes of noted narcissists and hotheads like Donald Trump and Chris Christie. 

Libertarians will likely find some Fiorina positions palatable, some superb, and some the same old GOP culture-war and world-policing nonsense. Fiorina opposes the recent nuclear deal with Iran and raising the minimum wage. She's a fan of maintaining tight ties with Israel, and school choice. She supports a federal ban on abortion after five months pregnancy (with some exceptions), and making birth control pills available over-the-counter. She wants to repeal Obamacare, and put more troops and missiles just about everywhere. 

Her views on drugs are an especially mixed bag. At Wednesday's debate, Fiorina was one of three candidates who agreed that marijuana's legal status should be left to each state to decide, an opinion she shared with Jeb Bush and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie dissented, and the rest weren't asked). She spoke of step-daughter, Lori, who died in 2009 after struggling with addiction—a loss that left Fiorina critical of a system that jails rather than treats addicts, and in favor of "decriminalizing drug use." But Fiorina is also fond of some pretty terrible Drug War rhetoric, saying Wednesday that "we are misleading young people when we tell them that marijuana is just like having a beer," that the marijuana today is different (and, implied, more dangerous) than marijuana was 40 years ago, and that "drug addiction is an epidemic." 

Another notable debate moment from Fiorina came in response to the question: What woman would you like to see on the $10 bill? After a string of candidates suggested their wives, daughters, and mothers, Fiorina claimed she wouldn't change a thing. "I think, honestly, it's a gesture," she said. "I don't think it helps to change our history. What I would think is that we ought to recognize that women are not a special interest group. Women are the majority of this nation." 

It's a theme Fiorina also touched on last week, at a speech before the National Federation of Republican Women that her super PAC, Carly for America, subsequently turned into a campaign ad. Trump had just made some disparaging remarks about Fiorina's face—to paraphrase: would you vote for someone with that face?—remarks he's since said were in reference to her "persona." (Watch them confront each other about this at the debate here.) "Ladies, look at this face," Fiorina says in the ad.

And look at all of your faces. The faces of leadership. The face of leadership in our party—the party of woman's suffrage. The face of leadership in your communities, in your businesses, in your places of work and worship. Ladies, note to Democrat Party: We are not a special interest group, we are the majority of the nation.

The ad was panned by progressive writers, who accused Fiorina of "trying to thread the needle between opposing identity politics and capitalizing on the personal attacks against her clearly based on gender" (Sally Kohn, The Daily Beast) and of rejecting "playing the gender card" while "gladly exploiting some of the GOP's image problems among women voters while denying that those problems actually exist" (Rebecca Leber, The New Republic). Kohn calls the ad "decidedly feminist," continuing:

Donald Trump wouldn't have said "Look at that face!" about a male candidate. It was a sexist comment. And by pointing it out, and rallying voters around it, Fiorina is effectively saying, "Look, I'm getting treated differently as a candidate because I'm a woman and that's not right." This, ladies and gentlemen, is feminism.

Indeed, it is. I'm just not sure why that's presented like some sort of "gotcha." Fiorina describes herself a feminist, even penning a June essay for Medium titled "Redefining Feminism." In it she wites:

It's important that we wage elections on the basis of the issues that matter to the American people. I've never been a token in my life. On the other hand, the facts are that I'm a woman and so I bring a woman's perspective to the table.

The piece makes clear that her favored flavor of feminism is one rooted in choice and equal opportunity, with shades of Sheryl Sandberg and Friedrich Hayek apparent. "A feminist is a woman who lives the life she chooses," writes Fiorina. "We will have arrived when every woman can decide for herself how to best find and use her God-given gifts. A woman may choose to have five children and home-school them. She may choose to become a CEO…or run for President."

What it lacks in policy specifics, Fiorina's brand of feminism makes up for in hope and change.

"Certainly, Fiorina capitalizes on conservatives' desire to counter Clinton and to demonstrate that the Right is welcoming of women leaders," wrote the Independent Women Forum's Carrie Lukas in the New York Post this summer.

But unlike Clinton, who implies America has a duty to elect her to bleach the country's stain of sexism, Fiorina casts her story as a part of women's steady progress. She can tell jaw-dropping anecdotes about the sexism she faced in the business world, but offers a decidedly positive vision of the United States as a country making strides toward becoming a more perfect union.

A wife and mother who started as a secretary and worked her way up to top executive at Hewlett Packard—becoming the first female CEO of a Fortune 50 company—Fiorina doesn't shy away from saying that "the playing field is not level" for women in the workplace. She has highlighted sexist treatment she experienced in the boardroom and on the campaign trail. When Trump accused Fox moderator Megyn Kelly of bleeding out of her "wherever," Fiorina came to Kelly's defense, stating bluntly: "I've had lots of men imply that I was unfit for decision making because maybe I was having my period. Women understood that remark. And yes, it is offensive." 

Yet something in the way Fiorina broaches these topics feels more defiant than blame-casting or pity-seeking. It's a refreshing change from the Feminism of Perpetual Outrage and Trauma that takes up so much cultural space these days. I have a feeling that a lot of people who consider themselves feminists (or at least pro-equal rights, etc.) but are alienated by the modern movement might think the same.

In other words, a feminism based on empowerment rather than victimhood could be a pretty powerful tool in the right hands. And so far, Fiorina and her campaign seem up to it. What Kohn and Leber read as Fiorina talking out of both sides of her mouth could also be looked at as pretty savvy attempt to fuse Fiorina's feminist first principles with a party for whom "women's issues" can be anathema. 

Yet the fact that Fiorina "does a good job of highlighting the problems most often raised by feminists as those in need of solutions"—as Salon's Jenny Kutner put it—while simultaneously failing to espouse liberal policy goals seems to flabbergast many mainstream feminists, as if supporting Obamacare is a precondition for noticing sexism or wanting women to have equal rights. "She has the nerve to use the term women's suffrage!" ranted The View's Joy Behar Monday, discussing the new Fiorina super PAC ad. "She's against ObamaCare. She's anti-choice. She uses the term women's suffrage. She should be ashamed of herself."  

The New Republic's Elizabeth Stoker Breunig called Fiorina's brand of feminism "an empty marketing strategy" while Kutner referred to it as "delusional." Andrea Flynn at The New Republic called Fiorina a "Trojan horse in the GOP's War on Women," opining that Fiorina "presents herself as a candidate Republican women can get behind—especially as Donald Trump increasingly alienates them. But if she made it to the White House, she would enact a conservative agenda that is bad for women and bad for families." Flynn's evidence? Fiorina stuck up for Megyn Kelly "in the wake of (Trump's) sexist attacks," something Flynn says she only did to "serve her party well" and deflect "attention from the candidates' anti-abortion debate remarks." Carly's other crimes include opposing a checklist of Democrat-approved policies and laws, from the Obamacare contraception mandate to raising the minimum wage. 

"The progressive view of feminism is not about women," wrote Fiorina on Medium. "It is about ideology."

What's strange about so much of the gender-centered critique of Fiorina is that instead of arguing against her ideas and proposals, critics simply assert that these are "bad for women" and move on, focusing the bulk of rebuffs on Fiorina's nerve in presenting herself as a femninist. I guess this plays well with their audiences. But research on the ultimate benefit of things like mimimum wage hikes, anti-discrimination laws, and parental leave mandates is far from clear in one direction; there's plenty of evidence suggesting these policies exacerbate the problems they're enacted to solve. Obviously liberals may not find that evidence convincing, but it would be nice if they acknowledged it exists.

Doing so, however, would destroy the narrative that there is only one way to do feminism, and that's the Democrat way. As a libertarian feminist, I've had ample firsthand experience with this attitude. A crushingly large number of liberal feminists won't allow for the fact that some people might share their broad goals but disagree about how to best achieve them. It isn't just "I understand we both want to create more family-friendly work polices in the U.S., but I think your plan is wrongheaded and unlikely to work," it's "I think your plan is wrongheaded and unlikely to work, and therefore why do you hate women?" 

On MSNBC, Fiorina said she was out to reclaim feminism from people who think you can only be a feminist if you believe the entire "litany of the left." It's a message that seems to resonate with conservatives eager to cast themselves as pro-equality without buying into trigger warnings and affirmative consent laws.  

"If the wide field of people running for the Republican nomination has taught us anything, it is that people can wear the same label without having identical views on every issue," wrote Young Voice Advocate Anne Butcher. "The label of 'feminist,' too, should be worn proudly by anyone who acknowledges that sexism still exists and wants to end it. This can include Lena Dunham, Hillary Clinton, Carly Fiorina, Beyoncé, and everyone in between." 

The 2016 presidential race is sure to provide Fiorina with many more opportunities to brandish her brand of feminism—and I have to admit, I'm excited at the prospect. A leading female Republican candidate who is shrewd and steady; addresses women as a group without resorting to cutesy labels or mentioning soccer practice; and embodies a sort of apolitical/cultural feminism is a rare bird right now indeed. Fiorina might not be a candidate libertarians can love, nor one likely to please most feminists, but she is bringing something different and interesting to the presidential race. And while her potential to change the way Hillary Clinton "plays the gender card" has gotten most of the attention, Fiorina just might mix up the way the Republican Party relates to gender, too. 

NEXT: #IStandWithAhmed and the Silence on the Drone Wars

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. Fiorina’s been playing now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t with the so-called gender card. Will it work?

    A better game than ‘hide-the-sausage’?

    1. She won’t be putting an end to the cock-meat sandwiches at Gitmo I can tell ya

  2. Take or leave Fiorina’s agenda, but she’s no “I can see Russia from my house” lightweight.

    Well, I’m glad she’s no Tina Fey.

    1. Yeah, I was going to note that no female candidate actually ever said that.

      1. ditto

      2. We wouldn’t want to impugn the intellectual reputation of Sarah Palin on these pages!

        1. Lies are okay if they promote the left’s agenda! Never change, Tony.

          1. Palin’s defenders seem to be the only ones suffering from the delusion that Palin is thought to have said those exact words. It remains true however that she did offer up Russia’s proximity to Alaska as relevant to her foreign policy qualifications.

            1. I can already envision them descending upon some future Portlandia metropolis. In some glassy corporate high rise, xir is giving a presentation to xir’s gender fluid co-workers regarding a new line of artisanal shirazz for otherkin and organic kale enemas when the desks begin to shake. They look out upon the horizon?they’re coming? After a good long group cuddle cry they assemble a ten thousand strong twitter army for a candle light vigil protest / slut walk. There are no survivors.

            2. “Palin’s defenders seem to be the only ones suffering from the delusion that Palin is thought to have said those exact words”

              You’re a fucking lying piece of shit. Most people on the right know what she said. It’s something that one could actually look up if they had any interest in being honest and correct. Most of the people repeating that drivel as a criticism, think she actually said it. Guess the political affiliation of those people.

            3. Palin’s defenders seem to be the only ones suffering from the delusion that Palin is thought to have said those exact words.

              I think you misspelled “attackers”.

              1. Two dumbass liars in a row each lied about what Toni said, somehow “forgetting” to also quote the very next sentence:

                It remains true however that she did offer up Russia’s proximity to Alaska as relevant to her foreign policy qualifications.

                That is what she did, chumps.
                It was regarding her expertise on Russian actions.
                Palin was indeed stupid as hell.
                And Fiorina is indeed no such retard.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGSJCDw3ZBw

                Followed by a dozen more bullies.
                But it was only Tony … and they are mindless conformists … so they are each rewarded with a cookie for pummeling anyone they believe (hallelujah) has strayed outside their mandated conformity. To “prove” they aren’t as fucking retarded as Palin., while being as retarded as Palin!. (See Groupthink — all lining up behind the first fuckup)

                Someday, perhaps, might they learn what it means to use quotation marks?
                NAH.

                Watch what the tribe chants NOW! (walks away laughing)

            4. Not to stick up for Palin here, but being the governor of Alaska does indeed afford one more direct experience dealing with Russia and their various actions/incursions/issues than being governor of Virginia, or, you know, a community organizer in Chicago.

              Just like how being governor of New Mexico or Texas or Arizona would provide a great deal of firsthand experience dealing with border issues.

            5. How about Crazy Uncle Joe’s grasp of American history. Why does he and 54 states Obama always get a pass??

          2. WTF, Tony’s handler slipped up the other day. It is one of the regular commenter’s sock puppets. We just haven’t figured out who, yet.

            1. Hmmm, or could be Welch or Gillespie poking us with a stick…

            2. Keep guessing.

              1. I’m bad like that.

        2. Hey, look everybody! The sock hates all the right people!

        3. I don’t think much of Palin, but it’s good to at least try to be honest when criticizing people.

          1. Like Obama critics?

            1. Yes, some of them get pretty stupid too sometimes. Plenty of credulous idiots, left and right.

              1. But Zeb, “Tony’s” standard view seems to be that only defenders of O and Liberals and the Left are telling the truth and that anyone making any claims on the ‘other side of the aisle’ are stupid, or guilty of any of dozens of other sins…

                I maintain that Both parties/sides do stupid things, and if you want to do a ‘cult-ometer’ reading, just point the meter at anyone who sings the “My side is perfect and everyone on the other side is… [fill in the derogatory descriptor]”

                I can agree with “Tony” that the Right-leaning folks, from voters to politicians, do really stupid things, but until he can see that the Lib/Left also shares those ‘skills,’ there’s just no talking, let alone reasoning (or worthwhile conversation) possible with him.

                So I try to find my amusement elsewhere… 🙂

    2. Huh-huh, Sarah Palin is so stupid – look, a liberal actress made fun of her!

  3. Fiorina’s been playing now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t with the so-called gender card. Will it work?

    BTW, in all seriousness, isn’t that the way the gender card is supposed to be played?

    1. It’s just unusual to see such skill on display from a candidate for political office. It’s a jarring contrast from Hillary’s “vote for me, because VAGINA, War on Wymens, garble garble” idiocy.

      1. She really is stunningly prepared and extremely sharp witted.

        1. She is Woman, hear her roar.

    2. BTW, in all seriousness, isn’t that the way the gender card is supposed to be played?

      Probably.

      Though playing any kind of identity politics card never works for Republicans against Democrats, and instead tends to blow up in their face.

    3. You never heard of three-gender-card monte?

      1. Careful, you’ll summon John to the thread.

    4. I don’t think that this single issue (gender) will overcome some of the other issues she seems to be counter to the peoples’ beliefs. There are so many of her stands that I feel are against mine. She, in the end, is another, control loving, neocon. Bigger government is never cheaper!

  4. I’m reading between the lines, but if I’m not mistaken, what ENB is saying here is that she’s definitely voting for Fiorina this election.

    1. ENB likes to play her own gender card close to her boobs.

        1. *looks over WTF’s shoulder intently*

  5. but she’s no “I can see Russia from my house”

    In fairness to Palin, what she said was “From certain parts of Alaska, you can actually see Russia.” Which is true. Like Palin or not, at least be honest with what she said.

    1. Unfortunately, most people really believe Palin said that. Even when you show them the Tina Fey clip, they insist Palin said it first. And since there’s no way to prove something didn’t happen, they continue to believe it. People are so stupid.

    2. Yep, my father-in-law was stationed in Alaska. He said from their watch Tower you could look through binoculars at the Russian towers and see the Ruskies looking back at you with their binoculars.

    3. You can’t see Mexico from Austin and yet somehow the proximity is relevant.

  6. Women are, on average, physically weaker than men. The strongest woman in the world has never been as strong as the strongest man. By the laws of nature, it is just, right, and good that men rule over women, as the weaker member of the species. Women should be classified according to attractiveness, and allotted to males on the basis of physical prowess. It’s disgusting that small, weak, timid men can reproduce as much as strong, powerful, willful superior men, which has never happened before, and it is dysgenic.

    1. Your newsletter, I’m interested……

      1. Seriously, I’m sick of having to pretend that I give a shit what women think. When my wife is yapping about something, all I can think is, “You know what? I could break her fucking jaw and shut her up right now.” Though she doesn’t realize it, they only speak and participate fully in society at our sufferance. They couldn’t even get the right to vote for themselves, they had to convince men to grant it to them. Everything they have, they get from wheedling men.

        We need to just draw a line in the sand and say, “no more.” You can have what you can take, with violence, like all other animals. If you can’t get what you want through force, then you’re a piece of shit anyway and deserve your lot in life.

        1. This….is the most awesome thing I’ve read in ages.

          *starts slow clap, rises, applauds more and more vigorously*

        2. That’s a pretty fucked up rant if you are being serious. Do us a favor and don’t identify as libertarian.

          1. Oh please, like you aren’t also sick to death of hearing about the poor oppressed women and fags in the US, who have it better than anywhere else on earth.

            You’re right, I was joking in that people shouldn’t beat their wives. But I’m sick and tired of being told to restrain myself for the benefit of weaklings and social outcasts. The majority of society treats you like crap? Man the fuck up and get over it, or do something about it (something besides whining endlessly).

            1. DO POSTREL NEXT JJ

              1. See, this is why Postrel thinks we’re jerks!

                1. She doesn’t think we are, she knows.

            2. You’re right, I was joking in that people shouldn’t beat their wives.

              Cue the Dead Milkmen.

              1. You know what sarcasmic? I like you. You’re not like the other people here
                in the comments section.

            3. Yeah, how dare those women and gays aspire to something better. They’ve got it good enough!

              You’re just being an asshole. Hey, we all can be assholes, and sometimes that is the only way to get through to idiots. But you’re on some sort of HULK SMASH rage and you’re just being an misogynistic asshole and an idiot yourself.

              1. No, people can always aspire to better.

                What they CAN’T do, is what they’ve done: pretend that unless everything is set up to accommodate them, to the point that they can sue if it isn’t, then it’s OMG THE HOLOCAUST X1000!!!

                And then talk about how we need to stop oppressing those poor Muslims, with their sterling record of treating women and fags like equals.

                1. We are 100% on the same page as far as SJWs using the government to force their worldview on others.

                  But if you really think it is that insufferable to treat people the way they want to be treated when it really isn’t even that big of an imposition, then I got back to you just being sort of an asshole about it. I mean, I think the whole he/she/ze thing is sort of silly, but it’s no skin off my nose and if it make someone a little happier in their life, then I just don’t see what the big deal is.

                  1. The problem is, you’re playing their game. It’s getting you to make the small concessions because it’s “no big deal” that is the wedge in the door for SJW rule.

                    This isn’t debate, it’s war. And the only way to win a war is to utterly crush the enemy in every way. Otherwise you get Germany 1919, thinking they haven’t really lost.

                    Scorched earth. Ban abortion and fags back in the closet, immigrants the fuck out of here and back to Mexico. Destroy the opposition. Then we can negotiate from a position of strength.

                    1. This is transcending parody.

                    2. Let’s nuke ourselves back to the stone age! Only THEN can we build the society we deserve!! ONWARD BROTHERS, TO RUIN, TO SALVATION!

                    3. Someone just saw the new mission impossible movie.

                    4. Mr. Trump? Don’t you have anything better to do with your time?

                    5. I read the article, then cruised down to the comments to get a pulse. Then I read your epic rant and forgot the article. I get that you’re probably half joking/half serious, but thanks for the entertainment. Just what I needed. I too occasionally feel the urge to say,”fuck every one of the slack jawed weasels who are having their feelings hurt. Every FUCKING one of them.” I feel better already. Like you said, just fucking deal with it. Sure, your point of view might be getting slammed, that’s an indication, if it happens often, that your point of view is fucked up. Deal with your adversity. Go,Go, Gojira!

                  2. But if you really think it is that insufferable to treat people the way they want to be treated when it really isn’t even that big of an imposition

                    I “identify” as General Zod You will kneel before me- because it’s not that big of an imposition,,,

              2. He’s probably been playing video games. I know sometimes I want to throw my monitor through the window… or break someone’s jaw.

            4. “Man the fuck up and get over it, or do something about it”

              Already have.

              You have to provide us with wedding cakes, on penalty of death.

              Any speech you make using your real name is hate speech, which is of course a capital offense.

              Oh, and we’re teaching your children all about same-sex fisting at mandatory postmodern sex-ed class. In elementary school. And if you don’t bring them in to attend, we’re sending the local police force’s tank to punch a few holes in your wall (and maybe your skull).

              Now shut up, weakling. We own you. You will comply.

          2. I think my SarcMeter Recalibration, Inc. is about ready for its IPO.

            Business is booming, and now that we have our Somalian Orphanage facility up and running, costs are way down!

          3. It’s a joke.

            1. Really, I’ve just had enough.

              I’m sick of having to pretend that I like seeing brown faces who don’t speak my language just as much as I like seeing people who look like me, and who do speak my language.

              I’m sick of being told to pretend there isn’t a massive difference between blacks and whites in terms of criminality.

              I’m sick of being told that fags not being allowed to marry is somehow on the same moral level as slavery, but it’s all good to ignore that if you’re Muslim.

              I’m sick of being told that if I don’t pony up for on-demand abortions, I’m oppressing women.

              And I’m making a damned stand.

              1. You should run for president.

                1. This is basically Donal Trump’s message.

                  1. If it wasn’t for his economic ignorance, which is profound, I would vote for him.

                    Problem is, he’s right about all the social issues, and dead wrong on the one thing that really matters most.

                    1. dead wrong on the one thing that really matters most.

                      And we all know what that is.

                    2. And we all know what that is.

                      Stoned gay Mexican abortions, right?

                    3. “Stoned gay Mexican abortions, right?”

                      MANDATORY stoned gay Mexican abortions, funded by cash confiscated from the collection plates of good Christian churches.

                  2. Fuck off, Lynchie. Gojira is telling a truth you’re too afraid to confront. And he pisses off all the right people, which makes him a genius.

                  3. LynchPin1477|9.18.15 @ 3:32PM|#

                    This is basically Donal Trump’s message.

                    reply to this

                    I’m not sayin’. I’m just sayin’.

                2. I wish to add to my list.

                  I’m sick of being told that if I don’t refer to a goddamned freak by the pronoun it wishes, that I am engaging in oppression.

                  I’m sick of being told that if there aren’t 37 bathrooms for everybody on the LGBTQ#A;OD!KH scale, then they are oppressed.

                  Feel free to chime in here.

                  1. So basically everyone needs to harden the fuck up? I can’t argue with that.

                    1. Bingo, Dark Lord. That’s my entire campaign platform.

                    2. Campaign slogan:

                      Tellin’ it like it is!

                  2. I’m sick of white heterosexual males whining like little girls about how oppressed they are by other people claiming oppression. It’s too much.

                    1. I’m not oppressed, Tony. Just sick of it.

                      I’d be oppressed if you could actually do something about it. But since you’re a weak little pervert, all you can do is whine and engage other, stronger men to use the “law” to protect you.

                      500 years ago you would have been killed had you been found out. Now you can lead a full life. But it’s not enough. You have to be able to sue people into oblivion for not affirming you. And it’s disgusting.

                    2. Your problem is you think that what might have been adaptive 500 years ago is relevant to our current environment. What’s the difference between big biceps and a good lawyer, fundamentally? It’s all just tools and strategies. You people never actually realize it, but all you’re doing is whining. You’re the weak one, because you can’t so much as tolerate a pronoun. A pronoun! Give me a fucking break.

                    3. white men are smart enough to check the right boxes before we hire a white guy

                      So, at the end of the day, we go from sympathetic to sick of the shit and just paying lip service to the dumb blonde’s great ideas before we fuck her and her sister.

                    4. lip service to the dumb blonde’s great ideas before we fuck her and her sister.

                      Right next to each other? Awesome! And if I could get one of them to warm the other up with her tongue it would save a LOT of work. And be Awesome!

                    5. Tony:
                      “What’s the difference between big biceps and a good lawyer, fundamentally?”

                      Seriously? You don’t know the fundamental difference between a bicep and a lawyer?

                      And you complain about the relative intelligence of the meal time crowd?

                      I can think of a few.

                      I think the biggest difference here is that a lawyer is used specifically to whine and plead to a paternal authority figure to give you want you want, without which, you have no hope of getting what you want. With the biceps, there’s usually no appealing and begging and whining and pleading involved.

                      There are actually other fundamental differences, believe it or not. But, I think that’s the most relevant one.

                    6. “What’s the difference between big biceps and a good lawyer, fundamentally?”

                      Tony has a lawyer.

                    7. This is known as the “sugar daddy” model of achieving your will, and it’s only taken by the strongest of individuals, he will tell you.

                      Of course it is.

                    8. I’d be oppressed if you could actually do something about it.

                      Isn’t that sort of the issue, though? I mean… he can do something about it.

                      The oppressions that the people you’re lambasting complain about are often legal oppressions. if Tony can use the force of law to do the same to you, that is basically an oppression, isn’t it?

                      I mean, I’m not saying you should adopt the rhetoric of the Eternally Offended and Oppressed, just, it seems to match the same.

                    9. No, they aren’t. They are social oppressions.

                      And at some point I decide that nothing makes you fuckers happy and if I am going to be called an asshole, I might as well get the benefits of acting like one.

                    10. “500 years ago you would have been killed had you been found out. Now you can lead a full life. But it’s not enough. You have to be able to sue people into oblivion for not affirming you. And it’s disgusting.”

                      But you said to force you to comply, and there “we” are. You’re now forced to comply.

                      If you don’t do exactly what we want, the Diversity Compliance Force will storm in, military spec equipment at the ready, and make you.

                      And because might makes right, you’re the weakling who has been Darwined out of existence, right?

                  3. Trump and you are wrong on the social issues.

                    The problem is that he (and seemingly you) are too pissed off or too stupid (I suspect the former) to construct a well reasoned argument to counter the SJW bullshit. And it plays right into the SJWs’ hands. They want to paint a picture of you as a pissed off white guy who is threatened because his historical “privilege” is being threatened, and you are playing the part beautifully.

                    If you want to run head on into the SJW clusterfuck with your own hammer and just start smashing stuff, go ahead, but don’t drag libertarianism, which has a proud history of using higher brain functions to try and solve problems, into it.

                    1. I can claim any political tag I want to, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

                      I’ll go around shouting from the rooftops that I’m libertarian, and I want the blacks locked up and the muslims and Mexicans booted out.

                      Who’s gonna stop me? You? Are you going to use your “higher brain function” to keep me from whippin your ass? Gonna plot some chess moves while I break your jaw?

                    2. FYI, I’m not actually threatening anyone. Pointing out that, in the face of overwhelming physical inferiority, “high brain functions” is the fallback resort of a nerdy beta.

                    3. “high brain functions” is the fallback resort of a nerdy beta

                      Unless that high brain function can do this

                    4. Granted. But I suspect he’s talking about reading old sci-fi books and debating Star Trek episodes.

                    5. Probably has a tribble vibrator.

                    6. He has a tribble clit-warmer.

                    7. Internet Tough Guy is tough.

                    8. No, I’d use my fists if you came at me. And maybe you’d kick my ass. But if you are going to go around trying to beat the shit out of people you disagree with, you belong in a cage.

                      Of course you can shout whatever you want from the rooftop. And I hope everyone that values liberty would ostracize you until you have as much legitimacy as a crazy guy in the street.

                    9. You might kick my ass, I don’t know anything about you. It was more of a meta-point, perhaps made poorly due to me being riled up.

                  4. I am really sorry I missed this thread yesterday.

                3. Alamanian/Gojira 2015 We won’t make it worse and your wife won’t talk back!

                  1. We won’t make it worse and your wife won’t talk back!

                    Unless the bitch wants another shiner!

                    1. What do you say to a woman with two black eyes?

                      Nothing you haven’t already told her twice.

              2. John?

        3. Seriously, I’m sick of having to pretend that I give a shit what women think.

          Then why don’t you stop pretending, and report back to us how it works out. 😉

          1. I’m glad I don’t have to pretend. I actually like my wife.

            1. Same here.

              Also, I thought Sam Colt put an end to that physically superior male thing. In fact, I know he did.

        4. If you really feel that way, why are you even with a woman? Maybe you should just hang out with other guys who share your revulsion for the female form. NTTAWWT.

          1. He likes their form. It’s their constantly running mouths that are the damn problem.

            They think there’s a war on women? We’ll show them what a real war on women would look like.

            1. Gorram right.

              1. Lmao. FIREFLAY

            2. Putting up with women’s minor annoyances is a small price to pay in exchange for getting laid on a regular basis. If someone can’t handle that then maybe they should settle for a Real Doll.

              1. Putting up with women’s minor annoyances is a small price to pay in exchange for getting laid on a regular basis.

                This afternoon my wife watched some chick flick on Netflix, and texted me saying I’d like it. I texted her back and said I could pretend to like it if it got me laid. Luckily for me she has a sense of humor. I mean, she actually thought I was joking.

                1. It’s fascinating when straight men talk about their life partners as semi-lucid sacks of meat. I’ve dated people who I couldn’t talk to about things I cared about, who were basically just there to look pretty. But those relationships never last very long. Not being on the same level is a total deal-breaker.

                  1. If I’m smarter than her and stronger than her, what’s she bring to the table besides the vag?

                    1. Enhanced manipulation skills?

                    2. I just don’t understand how you could stand to live with someone who was just there to serve as a warm hole, yet who still possesses a mouth and something of a brain.

                    3. “If I’m smarter than her and stronger than her, what’s she bring to the table besides the vag?”

                      Six figure income?

                  2. It’s fascinating when straight men talk about their life partners as semi-lucid sacks of meat.

                    I know this will come as a shock, but straight women talk about their life partners in the same manner.

                    1. I guess it’s kind of the norm, but it sounds depressing. I don’t like to share a meal with dumb people who talk about frivolous things, let alone my home.

                    2. I guess it’s kind of the norm, but it sounds depressing

                      It’s going to happen regardless once you’re in a committed relationship just due to proximity. It’s when it happens frequently that you have to start being concerned about the long-term health of the relationship.

                      A few years ago, I was talking with the mother of one of my friends, who’d been married over 25 years at the time. I asked her how she and her husband maintained their marriage, and she said, paraphrasing, “It’s a lot of hard work. There’s some days where I want to just strangle him, but as long as the good times far outweigh the bad times, you find a way to work through the latter and appreciate what you have.”

                    3. It’s fascinating when straight men talk about their life partners as semi-lucid sacks of meat.

                      I know this will come as a shock, but straight women talk about their life partners in the same manner.

                      No wonder the divorce rate is as high as it is.

                    4. And I understand there can be many reasons people divorce, some “good” and some bad. But a lack of respect does not seem to help anything.

                  3. It’s fascinating when straight men talk about their life partners as semi-lucid sacks of meat.

                    Yeah… get back to me when the 2% of the population that are gay males aren’t still 30-40% of new HIV infections

              2. Putting up with women’s minor annoyances is a small price to pay in exchange for getting laid on a regular basis.

                Depends on whether or not she’s draining your wallet at an equal or greater rate than she’s draining your cock.

                1. Depends on whether or not she’s draining your wallet at an equal or greater rate than she’s draining your cock.

                  I believe I’m getting more than my money’s worth…

        5. ” You can have what you can take, with violence, like all other animals.”

          WHY INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION HAPPEN, WHY HITTING THINGS NO MAKE WORK

          1. I guess someone is on her period.

            1. No, all caps = pms….gosh, it’s like you’ve never even been wheedled before

              1. I pay to get wheedled by professionals.

            2. Bleeding from her, wherever.

          2. WHY HITTING THINGS NO MAKE WORK

            The hell it doesn’t.

            [slaps phone around, makes call.]

        6. “If I’m smarter than her and stronger than her, what’s she bring to the table besides the vag?”

          Except that your argument so far in no way suggests the premise that men are *smarter* than women – just stronger.

          You’re not saying “gee, my wife keeps making illogical arguments that I have to patiently correct with my superior wisdom.” You’re saying “sometimes my wife babbles gobbledy-gook stuff that makes my head hurt and I have to smack her to make her shut up and get me a chicken-pot pie.”

          By your logic, gorillas should be in charge, since in your world what is supreme is your ability to use violence to impose your will on others. A libertarian you are not, although yes, you are free to use the word.

        7. May you or your penis go gently into that good night. Sleep well.

        8. What if instead of wielding violence, they offer sex? Kinky fetish sex?

        9. When my wife is yapping about something, all I can think is, “You know what? I could break her fucking jaw and shut her up right now.”

          You might want to consider that I’ve spent the last 30 years teaching women to shoot, as have a whole bunch of other instructors. Women tend to be better at marksmanship than men. And they’re the fastest-growing demographic in shooting sports.

          Then there’s the Pink Pistols.

          Good luck with your “I’ve got the upper body strength” shtick.

    2. The strongest woman in the world has never been as strong as the strongest man. By the laws of nature, it is just, right, and good that men rule over women, as the weaker member of the species.

      No, it just guarantees that in an office full of women, men will still move the fucking furniture.

      1. …and in an office full of women… move, the furniture it will. Again. And again.

    3. JJ, I no longer get your newsletter. What’s up with that? Did your mimeograph machine run out of ink or something?

      1. I thought Jim was still using carbon paper in a typewriter? No?

      2. Do you even know how mimeograph machines work?

    4. I was with you until you had to start shitting on us weaklings. 🙁

      1. Dude, do you even lift? Uncle Warty wants a word with you!

        1. I lift a paper bag when I feel a panic attack coming on. Does that count, nice man on the Internet concerned with my well-being?

          1. Come deadlift with me! It’ll be fun!

            1. No! Deadlift with me! It won’t be fun!

      2. You’re a good kid. You have my protection. For now.

      3. If you’re a man, MJGreen, there is hope. Remember that movie The 13th Warrior, when they toss Antonio Banderas the sword and he can’t lift it? “Then grow stronger!”

        1. Unfortunately, JJ also thought that was permission to grow fatter as well.

            1. Is such a thing even possible?

        2. A yes, the Dark Ages. Otherwise known as “the Libertarian Moment.”

      4. Colt made us all equal.

        1. I’m torn on that.

          On the one hand, guns are awesome and I have several and I love them.

          On the other, it’s allowed dysgenically weak people to pretend that they’re the equal to human beings.

          1. Being the fittest caveman is not really relevant to homo sapiens’ current environment.

            1. …and eventually that’s gonna cost us as a species.

              1. How? We’ve never been more successful as a species.

            2. Isn’t that cute, Tony thinks he’s people!

          2. I know you are joking because the strength of the mind will crush your physical strength.

          3. Um this departs controlled flight I’m afraid.

            You are welcome to go to the times of “Biggest Strongman Wins”. I for one am pretty happy that some poindexter figured out metallurgy and chemistry to make the firearm. It is the reason we are no longer serfs. Not because some guy did lifts and made himself strong enough to punch a warlord in the face, but because anyone could pick up a rifle and shoot a strongman tyrant in the face without dedicating their life to martial arts. Those people could then go on to reproducing more kids who wouldn’t have to spend their lives studying martial arts, and instead made stuff like air conditioning and Blu Rays.

        2. Except for the people who can’t aim worth a damn.

          1. If we’re talking about situations where some strong person is physically preying upon a weak person, they’re generally close enough that aiming isn’t much of a concern.

            1. If we’re talking about situations where some strong person is physically preying upon a weak person, they’re generally close enough that aiming isn’t much of a concern.

              + George Zimmerman

  7. And why shouldn’t she play the feminist card. Men are very quick to make put downs on women all the time. It is about time a women get a chance to see what they can do. Hell they can’t possibly screw up the Presidency any worse than us men have

    1. like anybody could possibly know that.

    2. Hell they can’t possibly screw up the Presidency any worse than us men have

      Ohhhhhhh, I’d bet money they can

      *sees pic of Hillary on the internet*

    3. Men are very quick to make put downs on women all the time.

      Thank God nobody ever make put downs on men.

      1. +1 Hollywood stereotype of the stupid father

    4. Hell they can’t possibly screw up the Presidency any worse than us men have

      The next president, male or female can absolutely screw it up worse than all prior.

      1. This is true for almost all of the presidents. I see no reason for the trend to end.

  8. It is about time a women get a chance to see what they can do.

    Like Hillary?

  9. I like Carly. I think she’s competent even if I don’t like her on issue a, issue b, and issue c. And I don’t think Clinton or Sanders are competent enough to run a hotdog stand.

    Also, she’s the only female GOPer running for President, but Nikki Haley’s gotta be on a lot of people’s short lists for Vice President.

    1. Agree. She’s seems competent, well-informed, and intelligent. I would prefer Rand, but Carly would be fine as a second choice since Rand appears to have no chance.

      1. Plus, it would just kill the fucking proggies if the First Female President was a Republican.

        1. Imagine how different the world might be if Colin Powell had run.

          1. Well, we might not have had all the racial healing we’ve enjoyed under Obama.

          2. Imagine if Mike Ditka had run against Obama for senate. That selfish fucking asshole.

    2. I’d watch a reality show about politicians running a hot dog stand. in fact it ought to take the place of primaries.

      1. maybe that could be Trumps next gig when he loses.

    3. I am bothered by her support for more TEAM AMERICA WORLD POLICE and her stance on encryption, but America needs economic that isn’t retarded. She’s not that bad on drugs all things considered. She’s almost like a better Reagan. Any libertarian that wouldn’t take a Reagan right now is stupid.

  10. we are misleading young people when we tell them that marijuana is just like having a beer

    Indeed. Beer is much more dangerous.

    1. As a frequent consumer of both weed and beer (OK, bourbon), I can confirm this is absolutely true.

    2. When I was a kid in the 70’s it was easier to get pot then beer, now I just stick to beer and Whiskey

      1. Ron-

        That’s always my argument… I grew up in the Dry Capitol of the World. I coulld try to not get caught stealing dad’s booze, or just call the guy on my paper route and tell him to leave a dimebag in the mailbox.

  11. Fiorina opposes the recent nuclear deal with Iran
    Ooh that’s bad.

    Fiorina opposes raising the minimum wage
    That’s good!

    She’s a fan of maintaining tight ties with Israel
    That’s bad.

    She’s a fan of school choice
    That’s good!

    She supports a federal ban on abortion after five months pregnancy (with some exceptions)
    That’s bad.

    She supports making birth control pills available over-the-counter.
    That’s good!

    1. She contains potassium benzoate

    2. I actually agree with every one of those positions.

      1. Yeah, screw federalism!

        1. Well, yeah, I know some of those aren’t really the biz of the federal government.

          Doesn’t mean I can’t agree with her on them.

        2. All but one is federal.

          Opposing minimum wage means leaving it to the states if they want a higher wages

          Supporting school choice probably means allowing it. I doubt the Feds would try to force it.

          I suppose murder is a state issue, but to be honest I am not sure why that isn’t appropriate for the Feds. 14th amendment and all that.

    3. I can live with all those. They’re more reasonable than pretty much any other candidate (with the exception of Paul, of course).

    4. I see the last two as chained to each other. It would be immoral and socially problematic to enact one, and not the other.

  12. Meh, Fiorina is and always will remain a VP candidate. Her foreign policy views are unbelievably asinine, just not as vapid as Trump’s and I feel she’ll wilt under closer scrutiny when the paring of the field allows for it.

    Yes, she’s got a fine team of consultants telling her how to campaign but nothing about her I’ve seen suggests she’d be a particularly good president, let alone a libertarian one.

    She’s just a female Romney, IMO.

    1. What would a female Romney have in her binders?

      1. Still women. What else can you even keep in binders?

    2. Meh, Fiorina is and always will remain a VP candidate.

      In this field, this year?

      I wouldn’t write her off yet as the top of the ticket.

    3. Calling her a female Romney is grossly unfair. She isn’t a failed Cylon model for one thing.

  13. Another notable debate moment from Fiorina came in response to the question: What woman would you like to see on the $10 bill? After a string of candidates suggested their wives, daughters, and mothers, Fiorina claimed she wouldn’t change a thing. “I think, honestly, it’s a gesture,” she said. “I don’t think it helps to change our history. What I would think is that we ought to recognize that women are not a special interest group. Women are the majority of this nation.”

    This was a great moment. First, you had no fewer than THREE male candidates who couldn’t think of anyone but their own family members to put on a bill, and a fourth who selected a famous man’s family member. Four dudes who fucking clearly had a sexism issue?they couldn’t imagine a role more important than “wife or mother” to get a woman on money.

    And Carly just threw the whole thing back and had the most feminist response of all. We don’t need your stinking money. Beautiful.

    1. How about we get rid of people on money and have nice images of our landscape or significant accomplishments (such as the moon landing)? Besides, how much longer will physical money be around?

      1. The moon landing would be nice…

        1. “The moon landing would be nice…”

          Too bad it never really happened.

          Just kidding.

          1. Of course it did not happen. It was obviously a hoax designed to get the Soviets to spend money on the impossible. All the money appropriated to NASA for the moon landing went right into the Kennedy compound.

            1. Right now my biggest concern is that the Chinese or Russians will get there soon, destroy all evidence we were there, and then announce to the world it was indeed a hoax.

              1. I would be more concerned by the possibility of people never going back period. The moon landing may have been the high water mark of our civilization.

                1. The moon landing may have been the high water mark of our civilization.

                  That’s been my thought too.

                  1. Yes, and I find it very sad. NASA lost it’s vision a long time ago, George Bush at least had the right idea for NASA when he was president, sadly the current dumbfuck in the whitehouse decided that “Muslim outreach” was a more important goal for NASA.

                    1. It’s not even just the moon landing or NASA, but I think it’s a symptom of a much larger problem. We have a nation that doesn’t want to take risks anymore, that isn’t willing to seek new frontiers, that doesn’t believe in anything greater then it’s self. A nation that no longer dreams.

                      Basically a civilization thats in decline.

                    2. Nations don’t dream, only individuals do.

                      Going to the moon really didn’t produce much value. SpaceX is awesome and has a much brighter future.

                    3. While I love the Moon landings, they pretty much were the death knell for our Space Program. While NASA once was a testing ground for new research, it became a nationalized trucking company engaged in Prestige accomplishments. It was important for us to show the Soviets up, but the lasting impact was that NASA had a mandate to basically control everything space related in the US.

                      It is not a coincidence that in this day and age, NASA has no prestige plans and doesn’t even have a manned vehicle, while we have at least 3 top tier private rocket producers, and a private space habitat builder in the economy. If you want an industry to languish give it all to the government.

                    4. While I love the Moon landings, they pretty much were the death knell for our Space Program.

                      That was inevitable anyway. The whole point of the space race was to beat the Soviets to the moon–any knowledge we gained out of that trip was incidental to the actual achievement. Despite the science fiction of the era, NASA was never going to seriously attempt things like interstellar travel or space colonization because the Soviets weren’t attempting things like that themselves.

                      As you said, it was all about prestige accomplishments. We’ve gained more knowledge about the universe from various satellite feeds than we ever did on space walks or moon trips, but the latter were a lot more sexy at the time.

                    5. that makes me realize that what the hole climate change deal is about or shows us. We no longer want to explore we just want to protect what we have. climate change groupies are like the people who put their money in their mattress, they never invest in a better future and only rely on what can be done today. So instead of investing in planet visiting we put our money in a system that if burned like a mattress gets us nothing.

                    6. Arnold J. Toynbee already covered this sort of thing.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Study_of_History

            2. Of course it did not happen.

              So .. OJ then.

        2. I remember that being the reverse of the old Eisenhower dollar coins from the seventies.

      2. Yeah. I hate having real people on the money.

        My first choice would be to go back to Lady Liberty.

        1. Why should a Frog’s mother be on our currency?

          1. I don’t know what that means.

        2. How about Trump tower?

    2. Yep, now lets see if she wins any crossover votes with that.

    3. Only one other stooge on the stage might have gotten away with that much honesty, and that’s Trump?and it’s much too nuanced a response for him. That sentiment would have sunk every other candidate.

      I would put Janet Yellen on the currency, along with other prominent Fed chairmanperson. Except maybe Volker. I have some affection for Volker from my days following mises.org. No reason to impugn respectable people.

      1. I was going to say that, but really, they’re playing to the Republican base. You don’t think a guy could make the same argument and get a positive response for going against PC?

        1. Trump could, because that’s the turf he’s staked. Everyone else is playing milquetoast sop and hoping to soak up enough centrist voters to counter the support Trump’s getting. Except Graham, but fuck Graham.

          1. Couple-couple. Two dudes, stuffing $2 bills into another dude’s thong. Just as God intended.

            1. I really wish I could watch Huckabee’s expression while he read that.

            2. jesse’s comment is right where it belongs.

              1. Didn’t even notice. That’s terrific.

              2. Yeah, not sure how I managed to put that there, but I kind of like where it ended up.

                1. not sure how I managed to put that there, but I kind of like where it ended up.

                  I’ve used that line, too.

    4. I’d put Sasha Grey on singles.

      1. If Episiarch had been in the debate, you know his answer would have been, “your mom”.

      2. I know a couple that pulls out $100 in $2 bills when they’re going to see strippers.

        Inflation is a bitch.

        1. A couple friends or a couple-couple?

          The only strip club outing I really enjoyed was with my then-girlfriend.

      3. Aren’t you supposed to tip with $2 bills now?

        1. That’s just the tip. The rest is in ones.

        2. $2 bills? Do I look like Jay Gatsby?

          1. A straight friend’s ex used to tell her it was appropriate to twist quarters in dollar bills to make them a little Hershey’s Kiss of cash and that also helped with inflation. Apparently he’d toss these little $1.25 bombs at strippers and they’d LOVE it.

            And then suddenly he was single again and couldn’t figure out why.

            1. And then suddenly he was single again and couldn’t figure out why.

              *looks around nervously*

              Because he was broke?

              1. I do not know the answer either.

        3. Yeah you’re supposed to.

          But do I seem like a guy who gives a shit what whores think?

          1. Good point, JJ. I don’t know what I was thinking.

    5. Carly’s just smart enough to know that nobody wants women on their currency. Reminds them too much of their wives spending all their hard earned cash on purses instead of quality Scotch.

      When was the last time you used a Sacagawea or Susan B. Anthony coin?

      Yeah, exactly.

      1. You have it all backwards, jesse. As Huckabee pointed out, if his wife’s face was on the $10, she’d finally be spending her own money for a change!

        1. Shut the fuck up.

          So I can generate Huckabee talking points just by saying something aggressively stupid?

          Wait. I’m no longer surprised by this.

          1. It was…pretty amazing, I must say.

      2. I liked the Sacagawea coin. And the reason it failed was because they continued to print $1 bills, not because it had a woman on it. The Susan B. Anthony dollar failed because it looked and felt like a quarter, and people were getting them mixed up.

        1. Despite being a completely different color

      3. As yes Sacagawea. An identity politics double whammy!! Female and minority, and also somewhat of an obscure figure, I mean it was called the Louis & Clark expedition after all.

        1. I mean it was called the Louis & Clark expedition after all.

          No it wasn’t.
          /pedant

      4. I thought the Sacagawea dollar was nice. I tried to use them for a while.

        Too bad they were replaced with those awful president dollars which are the ugliest coins ever produced anywhere.

    6. I would have told them I’m disgusted with identity politics, and I’m offended by the notion that there should be a gender requirement for whomever we place on the $10 bill.

      Which also happens to be the truth.

    7. And Carly just threw the whole thing back and had the most feminist response of all. We don’t need your stinking money. Beautiful.

      Yeah I agree, it was the best possible response.

  14. Also, I’d like to think Carly would lay off as big a percentage of federal employees as she laid off at HP, but sadly, that’s probably too much to hope for.

    1. This is Hope and Change I could get behind, but you’re right. It’ll never happen – I haz a sad 🙁

    2. Man, I’d vote for her just on the off chance.

  15. Early female interlopers into male-dominated arenas tend to stake their claim on the territory in one of two ways

    Or the Hillary method, by being such a calculating shrewish figure that nobody believes or particularly cares that she’s a woman.

  16. Fiorina’s positions are pretty awful for the most part; when I 1st heard her shilling that Apple/Google need to let the Feds have backdoors in their encryption systems, that was enough to tell me everything I needed to know about her worldviews.

    Also, AFAIK she has no real accomplishments aside from running HP and Lucent into the ground.

    1. I’d say rising to be CEO of HP was a pretty significant accomplishment. They don’t hand that kind of position out like candy.

      You know, I went to her website and looked at some of her policy positions and some of them *sound* pretty good. But then you hear other reports about her and some of them sound really awful. So I don’t know what to make of her yet.

      1. There’s no such thing as a perfect candidate. It’s always a compromise. I even disagree with Rand Paul on a few things, but I would still vote for him in the unlikely event he got the nomination.

      2. I’d say rising to be CEO of HP was a pretty significant accomplishment. They don’t hand that kind of position out like candy.

        I guess. She just strikes me more as a manager rather than a leader. There’s nothing in her background nor demonstrable personality to suggest much of the latter.

        And I never hear ideas or vision from her. Only canned policy analytics that sound like she’s reading from a teleprompter in her skull.

        1. “She just strikes me more as a manager rather than a leader.”

          Clamoring to be led, are we?

          1. Hah, not really. If it were up to me, I’d rather have no president at all.

            So I don’t actually have a stake in the electoral outcomes of this, but it can be entertaining to observe the situation as if I do.

        2. She just strikes me more as a manager rather than a leader.

          Isn’t that what the President is supposed to do? The position is the Chief Executive.

          1. Isn’t that what the President is supposed to do? The position is the Chief Executive.

            I’m pretty sure executives can be leaders and advance ideas. Not that all of them necessarily will be.

            Think of it like a difference between Apple CEOs Steve Jobs vs. Tim Cook. Jobs comes in with ideas about what a desirable future for Apple could be, and succeeded in implementing this. Whereas Cook has more or less been maintaining the status quo since?not that there’s anything wrong with this per se as Apple’s been fine, it’s just that he doesn’t seem to possess the kind of creative market insight Jobs had.

            So, basically for the US to turn itself around, it’d need someone that can get shit done. An idea like “fuck you, cut spending” wouldn’t get anywhere under a managerial type.

            1. I’m pretty sure executives can be leaders and advance ideas. Not that all of them necessarily will be.

              Of course they can. My point is that the President is head of the Executive Branch. His job is to execute the laws passed by Congress. This idea of the President as the “Leader of the Free World” is not, in my opinion, a good thing. He can make suggestions to Congress and they can pass laws, or not, to codify his ideas. But his main purpose should be to execute the laws. In my opinion, the Congress should be the most powerful branch, which I think is also the Founders’ view as well.

              So, basically for the US to turn itself around, it’d need someone that can get shit done.

              This is exactly what we don’t need, unless that someone is Congress. A phone and a pen is not how the government is supposed to be run.

              1. Of course they can. My point is that the President is head of the Executive Branch. His job is to execute the laws passed by Congress. This idea of the President as the “Leader of the Free World” is not, in my opinion, a good thing. He can make suggestions to Congress and they can pass laws, or not, to codify his ideas. But his main purpose should be to execute the laws. In my opinion, the Congress should be the most powerful branch, which I think is also the Founders’ view as well.

                I agree with you in principle, but in current reality the office of president wields an extraordinary amount of power. Probably far more than Congress.

  17. Early female interlopers into male-dominated arenas tend to stake their claim on the territory in one of two ways:

    Actually, there is a third and quite common way:

    By leveraging off of their husband’s position or money. See, e.g., Hillary Clinton, Arianna Huffington. As a variation, of course, they are leveraging off of some other male relative (Chelsea Clinton, anyone?).

    1. Wealthy women earned their prestige and influence. Did you check your privilege this morning? Because if you had I think you’d realize you are much more privileged than oppressed minorities like the unimaginably affluent women you named.

  18. Sally Kohn is a terrible person. Also, I would.

    1. Do you have a vagina? Cause if you don’t, Sally will have none of it.

      1. I can have one if you look from a certain angle.

        1. Hmmm. Without using your hands?

  19. As the party’s only female candidate?and therefore the de facto foil to Hillary Clinton?Fiorina is uniquely poised (and pressured) to embody conservative’s tension between not wanting to be the “war on women” party and a long-held aversion to both feminism and “identity politics.”

    So, how to play “identity politics” while pretending you aren’t playing identity politics.

    Carly Fiorina has no qualification to be President. She’s a failure as a businesswoman, and thanks to our perverse system of executive compensation managed to get massively rewarded for that failure. Unlike Donald Trump or Herman Cain, she has no unique message. She’s just another cuckservative. She is an affirmative action candidate, plain and simple. If the GOP somehow nominates her, I’ll vote for Hilary.

    1. We got a live one!

    2. Look everybody! A REAL TROLL!

      Who also wrote this tripe:

      Libertarians who think it would be a good idea if the economy were dramatically less regulated should look to that sector of the economy where there is the least regulation: the tech sector. They like to trumpet it for it’s impressive levels of growth, but it is also a sector plagued by theft, fraud and defective products.(i.e. technology that is easily hackable) The crypto-currency bitcoin has next to no regulation, and look what keeps happening: theft and fraud. Or take the recent Ashley Madison hack. There is credible evidence that the whole thing is a giant hoax, with almost none of the 5.5 million women who used the site being real people.* Putting aside the question of whether a healthy society should allow such enterprises(Singapore does not), the episode ought to lead even the most die-hard libertarian to wonder if this is an example of under-regulation.(In 2014 alone Avid Life Media, which owns Ashley Madison, made 115.5 million dollars in revenue)

      1. Could be a Tony sockpuppet.

        1. I’m seeing a lot of blogspot trolls popping up on different threads.

        2. A sockpuppet’s sockpuppet? I am trying to imagine what that would look like.

          1. I’m imagining something like a meta-sockpuppet hydra, with socketpuppets growing out of socketpuppets in an infinite fractal regress.

      2. What… the fuck?

        More regulation would make tech items unhackable?

        1. No, but more regulation would certainly ruin tech innovation, along with thwarting most open source development, etc.

          1. Boom. Surest way to fuck over open source is to regulate the shit out of it.

            Worryingly, there are a lot of people in open source (NN advocates, for one) that invite it, which makes me very, very sad.

            1. Yeah, it’s a bizarre irony. Probably too much autism.

          2. Right, it could “work” in that hackable products won’t be developed at all, therefore we’ll all be safe from being hacked.

          3. Isn’t that what both Hillary and Sanders want to do control innovation through laws heck even China isn’t that assbackward.

      3. Cuckservatarians think the economy should be deregulated and shit! They think people should be free to make choices, even choices that might be mistakes! Cuckservatarians don’t want the paternal hand of government on everything the own, do, and say! Cuckservatarains like to watch the brown and black hordes pleasure their wives unlike us REAL GOP MEN who just want to see papa government get its firm, masculine hands on our businesses and pump away. WOO TRUMP.

        1. You’re missing the obvious subtext. More regulation would have prevented him from getting swindled by Ashley Madison’s female Markov chains.

          1. Lie. American regulation would have kept that Canadian company from stealing his money.

          2. Hah! That’s good. I didn’t bother reading what he wrote, just saw cuckservative and riffed on a thought I had last night about people who use terms like cuck really projecting some latent insecurities/desires.

            1. Dogs are always projecting something when they cuck.

          3. “More regulation would have prevented him from getting swindled by Ashley Madison’s female Markov chains.”

            That has the ring of truth to it which is probably why it made me laugh.

      4. There’s more:


        The Three Goals of the Republican Elite

        1. The GOP must look out for the interests of the ethno-state of Israel.
        2. The GOP must support the “Westernization” of the globe, so long as it does not conflict with the first Goal.
        3. The GOP must support reducing the size and power of government and support the “businesses community,” so long as it does not conflict with the First and Second Goals.

        This is a simplification, but it’s basically an accurate way to describe their worldview and goals. Everything else, abortion, gun control, immigration, and the long term success of the Republican Party is subordinate to those goals.

        Whatever it is, I bet the Jews did it!

        1. Meh. He’s no Truther Pirate. 🙁

          1. Yar, it is a little disappointing.

            1. Arr…we’ll have to console ourselves with rum (sodomy and the lash at each individual’s discretion).

              1. Rum makes me handsy. I like rum. I like being handsy. But other people often object to it, so I’ll have to forgo the rum.

                1. I have a friend who gets very handsy with other men when drunk. He’s a man with two kids by two different ex-wives and a string of girlfriends, and to my knowledge he’s never taken this habit anywhere (though maybe because all of our mutual friends are straight). Like, for my birthday we went out and got wasted and when I wouldn’t let him get in his car he copped a feel. And he likes to wrestle a lot. It’s never terribly discomforting, just a little eccentric. So I guess my question is, why when I get trashed and start hitting on my friend’s girlfriends am *I* suddenly the asshole?

                  1. If you have to ask….

                  2. I was going to make a serious point about women being too prickly about having a feel copped as a way to initiate foreplay, and realized I don’t really think that. Because a (possibly bisexual?) man approaching another man *is* a materially different situation than a man with unreciprocated feelings for a woman going for a grope. One of the more nauseating aspects of the progressive drive to obliterate gender distinctions is the patently absurd notion that women and men do not have substantial differences in physique or temperament, and part of acknowledging and respecting those distinctions in the face of this crushing PC movement toward denying and ignoring them is admitting that a man making unwanted advances on a woman can inflict a great deal of harm if he takes a mind. Not that he necessarily *will*, but in eschewing any sense of propriety or chivalry because those are gendered behaviors, women leave themselves open to the depredations of unsavory men.

                    So I decided to make a self-denigrating joke instead.

                    1. Drunk women do not mind being groped by their female friends.

        2. What’s wrong with Westernization? We wouldn’t have half the problems we have currently if the Arab states would have adopted some of the foundations of Western Civilization.

    3. “Unlike Donald Trump”

      Donald Trump didn’t fail at business?

      I’d rather vote for someone who failed at business (exception: Trump) than someone who succeeded as a Senator (exception: Rand Paul)

    4. 4/10, try harder.

  20. The thing about Fiorina is that when she gets indignant about sexism, the sexism is *real.* It’s not some microaggression, it’s a guy calling women ugly and on their periods.

    I mean, it’s Donald Trump.

    And *of course* they’re going to make Trump the representative of all Republicans.

    And Trump’s jokes aren’t even funny!

    1. (Disclaimer: Jokes about women are *never* funny unless they involve a woman cutting off a man’s penis.)

      /sarc

      1. Q) How many women does it take to change a light bulb?

        A) Four. Three to bitch about it and one to call a man for help.

        .
        .
        .

        Q) How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

        A) ONE GOD DAMMIT!

        1. Q) How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

          A) THAT’S NOT FUNNY!

          1. It’s in the delivery. You ask the question and then pause, expecting an answer. Soon as the person responds you interrupt with the answer.

        2. “Four. Three to bitch about it and one to call a man for help.”

          “You’re so much better at it!” Works everytime

          1. Q) How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

            A) Light bulbs are the product of a male-dominated conspiracy to enforce the Male Patriarchy by distracting womyn from demanding equal rights and getting ahead, and instead brainwashing womyn to worry about how to replace light bulbs when they burn out. Studies show that one in five womyn are raped by burned-out light bulbs, and that an astounding 100% of womyn who replace burned-out light bulbs can be expected to die at some point in their lives.

            /NaomiWolf

    2. It’s situation comedy.

  21. The last debate did elevate her to like the number 4 position of Republican candidates I’d like to see shot into space. Fuckleberry will always be my number 1, followed by Cruz. Carly might overtake Christie for number 3 if she continues to do things like that heartstrings-tugging non-sequitur of a response to the drug legalization question, which I think would turn off all libertarians.

    1. Tony derp de derp. Derp de derpity derpy derp. Until one day, the derpa derpa derpaderp. Derp de derp da teedily dumb. From the creators of Der, and Tum Ta Tittaly Tum Ta Too, Tony is Da Derp Dee Derp Da Teetley Derpee Derpee Dumb. Rated PG-13.

    2. Certainly turned me off.

      Thanks, Carly. We were discussing marijuana legalization (granted, in the larger framework, but it’s by far the most prominent and imminent issue for decriminalization). Sorry about your kid. But it has sod all to do with pot.

      1. Apparently her stepdaughter died from narcotics abuse. But this has everything to do with marijuana legalization, cuz “gateway drugs” or some shit.

        1. Oh, and there was alcoholism and bulimia going on too. But yeah, clearly the fault of marijuana.

        2. Which makes the comment really gross and exploitative.

          1. When life gives you lemons, you make lemonade. When your daughter takes her life you turn it into a campaign trail talking point. It’s the circle of life, or something.

  22. A woman divided against herself cannot stand!

    1. Not if you’re doing it right.

  23. Thanks ENB, I enjoy the approach to feminism you espouse in this article and appreciate you.

    1. +1 (natch)

      1. You forgot an “s”

        1. It took me too long to get this. Nice.

  24. “Take or leave Fiorina’s agenda, but she’s no “I can see Russia from my house” lightweight.”

    Before I start reading the comments I am guessing you take some heat over that one Liz.

    1. Any chance we can get a Trump vs. Palin imbroglio going and hope their respective fans keep each other busy through the November 2016?

      1. How? They are basically the same.

        1. The more similar, the more bitter the eventual split.

    2. Sloppy writing/lazy thinking deserves a bit of heat.

  25. I don’t think she needs to play the gender card at all. It’s not going to change anyone’s mind. But I guess it doesn’t hurt to try.

    1. You might be surprised at how many young voters want to be part of “an historic election.”

      1. Nah, that can’t have ever happened before.

      2. but..but the Republicans are evil, does not compute

        1. I want a woman president and support Hillary in part for that reason, but I would vote for a male D over a woman R without a moment’s hesitation. Because some of us can fit more than one motivation into our heads at once.

          1. Because some of us can fit more than one motivation into our heads at once.

            Tell me about it, it seems lately I just can’t fit any motivation into my head besides wanting a president who is qualified to lead something more than a prison riot. It’s such a curse being so one-dimensional.

            1. If people support a male D over a female R that proves that they’re not just thinking about gender and people can shut up about how women or minority politicians are some kind of affirmative action cyphers.

              1. I affirmatively voted against Obama, because I’m against every policy he’s every espoused, but I’m still racist, right?

    2. She plays the gender card by existing. Her existence will create think-pieces the likes of which ENB cited.

  26. “A crushingly large number of liberal feminists won’t allow for the fact that some people might share their broad goals but disagree about how to best achieve them. ”

    Because the Progressive goal is *power*, not any of the identity politics rationalizations they make for it.

    “Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”
    ? George Orwell, 1984

    1. You’re talking about Dick Cheney yet referring to progressives.

      1. But you repeat yourself.

  27. I hope you all appreciate what JJ is doing here.

    1. I know I do. JJ/Fiorina 2016

      1. Shut up, cocksock.

    2. I always appreciate JJ.

    3. He appears to be tweaking LP’s nipples.

  28. By the way – wow – I’m in love with Carly.

    Fiorina opposes the recent nuclear deal with Iran and raising the minimum wage. She’s a fan of maintaining tight ties with Israel, and school choice. She supports a federal ban on abortion after five months pregnancy (with some exceptions), and making birth control pills available over-the-counter. She wants to repeal Obamacare, and put more troops and missiles just about everywhere.

    … At Wednesday’s debate, Fiorina was one of three candidates who agreed that marijuana’s legal status should be left to each state to decide, …?a loss that left Fiorina critical of a system that jails rather than treats addicts, and in favor of “decriminalizing drug use.” But Fiorina is also fond of some pretty terrible Drug War rhetoric, saying Wednesday that “we are misleading young people when we tell them that marijuana is just like having a beer,” that the marijuana today is different (and, implied, more dangerous) than marijuana was 40 years ago, and that “drug addiction is an epidemic.”

    [Despite the Drug Warrior rhetoric complaint by ENB here, Fiorina is absolutely right about recognizing that pot has real and *lasting* psychoactive effects, (though she should recognize that alcohol does too). Fucking with your cannabinoid system is no more a free lunch than fucking with your serotonin system or your dopamine system. Being pro freedom shouldn’t mean denying the harmful consequences from choices you make.]

    1. I’d deposit those checks as soon as you get them if I were you.

      Carly was taken down by a single TV ad when she tried to become a senator. All they have to do is run the same ad again.

      1. Pretty sure Obama lost a race too.

      2. A Republican lost a statewide race in the People’s Republic of CA?

        Well, knock me over with a feather.

        1. It was a good ad. This Republican obsession with supporting people because they have no qualifications is really going to bite them in the ass.

          1. This Republican obsession with supporting people because they have no qualifications is really going to bite them in the ass.

            Obama?

            Hillary?

            And its the Republicans who have a problem?

        2. A Republican lost a statewide race in the People’s Republic of CA?

          Firoina’s supporters need to stop using this as an excuse. The GOP wouldn’t have been able to take the House or Senate, or win the majority of governorships, without winning in Democratic strongholds. If she can’t deliver her home state of California (just like Romney and Ryan failed to deliver Massachusetts and Wisconsin), she’s going to have to turn the blue-voting swing states and probably New Mexico and Nevada to have a chance in hell of winning the whole enchilada.

          The GOP isn’t going to have a tough row to hoe in presidential elections if their nominees can’t even turn their home states.

          1. *is* going to have a tough row to hoe

          2. “her home state of California”

            She lives in Virginia and is from there.

            If she delivers Florida and a couple of smaller Midwestern states, she could win.

            Remember, she’s campaigning against Hillary Clinton, who lost to a no-name junior Senator.

            1. She lives in Virginia and is from there.

              So basically, she’s just another power-monger who will carpet-bagged to where she thought she’d get elected, and STILL lost.

              If she delivers Florida and a couple of smaller Midwestern states, she could win.

              She won’t.

            2. no-name junior Senator.

              Don’t forget he was about half white. It helps.

    2. Fiorina is absolutely right about recognizing that pot has real and *lasting* psychoactive effects

      Jesus H. Christ, if the human body was as weak and fragile as people like you claim it is, the species would’ve died out millennia ago. Next, are you going to educate us on all the “toxic chemicals” that are the source of every modern disease and disorder?

      1. Just think about the tolerance to that known poison – alcohol.

    3. “decriminalizing drug use.”

      That is alcohol Prohibition.

  29. Fiorina did a great job. She’s way too into the Big Brother scene for me, but still better than the rest of the crew except for Rand. By now I’ve come to the realization Rand will have to pull off a miracle to get it this time. He still has a chance to get some converts for the next time though.

  30. IMO she’s better served by just kicking men’s asses and taking names than by saying ‘Women across America heard what you said’. It’s divisive and everyone has ears.

    1. Primaries are about division.

  31. This:

    “Yet something in the way Fiorina broaches these topics feels more defiant than blame-casting or pity-seeking. It’s a refreshing change from the Feminism of Perpetual Outrage and Trauma that takes up so much cultural space these days. I have a feeling that a lot of people who consider themselves feminists (or at least pro-equal rights, etc.) but are alienated by the modern movement might think the same.”

  32. Out of all the candidates on either side, Rand Paul is the clear favorite among libertarians. But, he’s not going to get the nomination. As such, the smartest approach to defeating large gov’t, IMO, is to get a GOP candidate elected, and Fiorina undermines Clinton’s ace card.

    1. It’s not “defeating” large govt. It would, at best, be enabling large govt in some areas, and slowing growth in others.

      1. yeah, yeah. you get my point.

  33. Im making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

    This is what I do. ?www.OnlineJobs100.Com

  34. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.Money-Hours.com

  35. Im making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

    This is what I do. http://www.OnlineJobs100.Com

  36. Sorry – this is a terribly imbalanced piece to me.

    The “she’s no “I can see Russia from my house” lightweight” is the first element hinting this was a puff piece on Fiorina in that A) Palin never said that (it was an SNL parody) and B) Palin at least had served successful in executive positions as Mayor, Energy Commission and Governor with enormous empirical success – (not just political success)

    It’s bad enough you don’t mention that her only claim to success is being a FEMALE CEO – and not a successful one given her terrible track record at Lucent and HP. But then to perpetuate the myth that she’s the first “female Fortune 500 CEO” – (Washington Post Company’s Katharine Graham was the 1st), proves that this writer either A) is incredibly limited in her reporting or fact checking skills or, B) really is already falling under the same feminist first delusions Fiorina is counting on.

    But hey – she’d probably still a better President. (except for that little part 2 weeks ago about thinking Boehner and McConnell still needed more time in the office to see what they were going to do..)

    1. Fortune 50. Not 500

  37. For good or ill, Carly Fiorina is the American Thatcher.

    1. No, she’s not.

    2. I wish she was the American Roofer. Thatched roofs are so impermanent.

  38. Is it not true the the marijuana on the street today is different than it was 40 years ago?

    1. On the street? Maybe.

      Available in legal retail outlets? Oh, yeah.

      See, I don’t know how much of the highly-bred pharma grade pot is being sold on the street. I doubt very much of it is, to tell you the truth. I’m guessing that what you can buy on the street is probably, on average, better quality/stronger than it was 40 years ago. But so what?

  39. Not sure what your facts have to do with my feels.

  40. She could get a sex change and do the Caitlyn Jenner strategy. Maybe she’ll do that in 2020.

  41. ????Start your home business right now. Spend more time with your family and earn. Start bringing 78$/hr just on a c0mputer. Very easy way to make your life happy and earning continuously. Start here?…………………..

    http://www.jobhome20.com

  42. Is Fiorina the perfect candidate to be President?

    No.

    Is she, definitively, not qualified?

    No.

    Is she pounding the “because I am a woman” drum?

    No.

    Is she trying to play it like her male counterparts?

    No.

    Is she addressing the issue of being the Commander in Chief with dignity, skill, presence, personality and willingness?

    Yes.

    At this point, I am voting for her.

  43. I don’t know who she is talking about. All the females I am talking to are voting for TRUMP.

  44. I want to see her naked

  45. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.