Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/04/27 23:23:53
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If the voters believe that the only way to participate in the aptly named participatory democratic process is to turn up on a pre-determined day to vote, and then complain after the fact about their limited choices then truly, voters get the government they deserve.
There is no implication there that d needs to run for office as you took and, pun intended, ran with. I'm sure that you are more than well aware of the numerous ways that there are to participate in the democratic process other than the extremes of 1) apathy from lack of choice, 2) running for office
LordofHats wrote: Until then I'm going to have to ask you to fill out this form listing all political activities you've participated in for the last five years. Be warned that leaving this form blank will result in me adding nothing to a conversation, but vague whining about how you're the problem. If you're not participated in the electoral process, you aren't allowed to offer an opinion on it, and even if you have I'll probably still just keep going on this triad because I've got nothing constructive to say.
Honestly. We've read what you said. Somehow you've just missed how absurd what you say is.
Non-citizen, so political activity is sadly limited as I cannot vote, run for office, or many other things besides, I have taken part in other activities that do not require me to vote.
Seems you are adding to your list of fallacies;
2016/04/27 23:44:45
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
So some 'expert witnesses' in a House Select Panel make a bunch of claims and the person that chaired the meeting (a woman that was chosen to manage debate on a bill that would criminalize all abortions after 22 weeks) decides they should be follow up on. Okay?
We're all aware that in the derpophere that you inhabit that investigation = guilt, but thanks for reminding us.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/27 23:46:29
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/04/27 23:47:15
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Only two years is absolutely fething disgusting! Personally, I think this just further shows what a joke our "justice" system is.
Am I both a hypocrite in some fashion for cheering that he's at least going to prison and at the same time, calling out how the FBI caught him is total BS?
They got him by catching him structuring... which is a means to withdraw/deposit large cash right under the report-limit, in order to payoff his victims.
I don't think that's total BS.... but it's conditional. I mean, if someone is "spying" on the banking habits of a public figure, that's wrong. But if an accuser went to the FBI, and during the course of the FBI's investigation uncovered this "structuring" process which would broaden the scope of initial charges, then that's cool, I guess.
I just think it fething disgusting the volume of crimes committed, and it's only 2 fething years. If this isn't a clear-cut case of a political/wealthy class receiving favorable treatment, I don't know what is.
2016/04/28 00:09:27
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I just think it fething disgusting the volume of crimes committed, and it's only 2 fething years. If this isn't a clear-cut case of a political/wealthy class receiving favorable treatment, I don't know what is.
To be fair, the sentence he received for sexually abusing kids is the exact same sentence everybody else would have received for that particular crime at this point in history: zero days. He was not charged for the abuse because they happened so long ago that it was no longer possible to charge him for it, that doesn't really have anything to do with his status as a politician or wealthy person.
He was charged with, tried for, convicted of, and sentenced for bank fraud, not the abuse.
I know it doesn't do much to change the fact that he got away with molesting the boys, but it is something we should probably keep in mind when talking about how little time he got for the crime considering he was never on trial for that particular crime to begin with.
I will also admit that I have no idea what the potential maximum sentence for the bank fraud could have been, so I don't know if he got of light for that crime or not.
2016/04/28 00:14:03
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Only two years is absolutely fething disgusting! Personally, I think this just further shows what a joke our "justice" system is.
Am I both a hypocrite in some fashion for cheering that he's at least going to prison and at the same time, calling out how the FBI caught him is total BS?
They got him by catching him structuring... which is a means to withdraw/deposit large cash right under the report-limit, in order to payoff his victims.
I don't think that's total BS.... but it's conditional. I mean, if someone is "spying" on the banking habits of a public figure, that's wrong. But if an accuser went to the FBI, and during the course of the FBI's investigation uncovered this "structuring" process which would broaden the scope of initial charges, then that's cool, I guess.
I disagree. They didn't find out about this because he structured...
It's because they couldn't catch him until they brought up the structuring thing.
Just goes to show when the FBI knocks on your door... you just shut the feth up and get a lawyer.
I just think it fething disgusting the volume of crimes committed, and it's only 2 fething years. If this isn't a clear-cut case of a political/wealthy class receiving favorable treatment, I don't know what is.
At least there is a little justice here...
Unlike a certain political front-runner.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/28 00:14:52
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/28 00:15:38
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/04/28 00:32:04
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
So some 'expert witnesses' in a House Select Panel make a bunch of claims and the person that chaired the meeting (a woman that was chosen to manage debate on a bill that would criminalize all abortions after 22 weeks) decides they should be follow up on. Okay?
We're all aware that in the derpophere that you inhabit that investigation = guilt, but thanks for reminding us.
Myself and others have pointed out to you a multitude of times where you have, beyond a shadow of a doubt, been entitled to your own "facts" despite being such an "informed voter." This is yet another example of that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/28 00:55:19
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/04/28 00:59:23
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: So, do you want to add something constructive to the conversation, or do you feel like winning the Internet Tough Guy™ award?
I already did and you unsurprisingly ignored it.
Myself and others have pointed out to you a multitude of times where you have, beyond a shadow of a doubt, been entitled to your own "facts" despite being such an "informed voter." This is yet another example of that.
No. You haven't.
The CMP videos were not shown to be "deceptively" edited or taken out of context.
The raw videos is right there in the link. But, you chose to ignore that.
The videographer didn't make PP's staff "say" those things...
The videographer didn't "make" the ex-PP staff blow the whistle on what's going on there...
The PP staff is on actual video there describing certain techniques to harvest "specific organs" based on the interviewer's request... which is illegal.
So, I welcome Fiorina/Cruz a chance to push this back into the sunlight, because the PP & supporters would love nothing more than to stop talking about it.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/28 01:01:23
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
They want to stop talking about it because of the kind of discussion that is just now cropping back up here. We're moving off PP in this thread again. Leave it
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/28 01:01:40
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
2016/04/28 01:01:42
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jmurph wrote: Sebster: 538's Nate Silver seems to have had a personal boas against trump that I think flavored a lot of the early coverage. Trump never really hit a "ceiling" it's just that point of the race included a serious outlier state- Utah.
Nah, looking at Trump’s massive unfavourability ratings, often in excess of 50% of Republican voters, it was pretty straight forward to predict that Trump would hit a ceiling. And for a time he looked ‘stuck’ at around 40% of the vote – it’s just that was enough to win because the rest of the party failed to form around anyone else.
What’s interesting is that while Trump has now recorded 50%+ results in a string of states, it’s possible this has been more due to the collapse of the opposition. The Republican turn out in these recent North East states has been very low, Trump may be claiming 50%+ only because the rest aren’t turning up to vote. Which may be because Cruz and Kasich have failed to appeal to Republicans in those states, but it may also be that many Republicans voters consider this election over – they don’t want to it dragged to a convention. Some exit polling supports that, even voters who don’t support Trump think he should be the nominee if he leads the delegate count.
So the Stop Trump message, which accepts he’ll have the most delegates, and plans to simply stop him winning automatically, may have been a disaster for the Cruz and Kasich. Especially when you factor in the good job Trump has done selling his message that he is the ‘deserved’ winner.
Essentially it was an anomaly in Trump's path and his delegate count has been consistently grinding on a steady path upwards. I agree that the miscalls are largely because this has been an "anti-Establishment" year so the expected frontrunners didn't make it out of the gates.
Everyone missed the Republican race having such a strong anti-establishment tone, because this kind of thing is extremely rare. Failing to pick an extreme outlier is getting it wrong for a good reason – people who pick extreme outliers all the time may get it right occasionally but that doesn’t make them useful forecasters. People who give a spread of reasonably likely options will get it wrong from time to time, but they’re still the most reliable.
The reporting establishment missed the tone of the race early on and discounted Trump, but were more than happy to play up the horse race later (as in all national elections).
There is certainly a horse race element to the campaign, that’s encouraged its see-sawing nature. That’s been seen in both races – they’ve been playing up Sanders chances, talking about him squeaking wins in small states, when all the time he’s been way behind in raw delegates and in polls. The media wants close races, as you said.
One thing that's very interesting about national politics is that it's largely a mix of regional, ethnic/cultural, and economic factions, not the imaginary "liberal/conservative" divide. For example, northeast blue-collar workers tend to pull towards Trump while upper income Southerners do not. The Democrats meanwhile have pretty much locked up the POC blocs, but are struggling to hold a lot of their working class base as they have shifted to more corporatist/business support.
Yeah, the need to build coalitions is exactly what I was talking about. That’s a very common part of mainstream politics in most countries. The Republican party right now isn’t really functioning in that way, it seems to have lost its means of building a coalition. This is because the nature of the party has changed – it’s now a group of extreme factions fighting for control of the party.
Regardless, the Republican's current anti-immigrant, hostility to POC, pro mega business stance propped up by moralist rhetoric is unsustainable as a winning national platform, though it continues to see strong support in certain regions. I really think a shift back to more worker friendly economic realism would do them wonders. Kicking the moral majority back to the edge would also help and bring them back in line with a minimalist government stance. Strong borders is fine so long as it emphasizes national safety, but too often veers into racist dogma and ignores the huge benefit large companies get from exploiting undocumented workers. The one bright spot the Republicans do have is national defense, but they to get back to emphasizing national defense and away from the neo-conservative interventionism.
Yeah, the Republicans are in the difficult position of needing the moral majority, but finding it very difficult to satisfy them without alienating other possible voters. They need to find a way to continue banking on those voters while normalising their policy positions.
The same can be true of the small government set (who need to be distinguished from the pro-business set). That group is hyper-focused on the deficit, on taxes and on entitlements, when those issues barely register as national concerns. And yet they’ve still got almost every sitting member to sign up to Norquist’s No Tax pledge.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: The Republicans lost national defense as an issue with their epic failure in Iraq.
Not sure that this means Trump loses it as an issue, because Trump has no national defense experience.
14 years is a long time in politics. Keep Cheney, Powell and anyone else publically associated with the Iraq debacle out of the national spotlight, and Democrats will find it almost impossible to relate that back to any current Republican in the spotlight.
Then Republicans just go back to making lots of noise about national security, and their brand will be just fine on that issue.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/28 02:15:57
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/04/28 02:25:50
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: So, I welcome Fiorina/Cruz a chance to push this back into the sunlight, because the PP & supporters would love nothing more than to stop talking about it.
The "sunlight" of coming in second behind Donald Trump and never being President.
Look, it's great that you're jumping back on the Fiorina bandwagon again after quietly jumping ship a couple of months ago. But don't worry, I'm sure they'll be a distant memory come November when you pull the lever next to Donald Trump's name... "Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia," and all that.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/04/28 02:39:00
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: But like it or not, we need a strong and active America, given that China regards the South China sea as it's personal lake, who else but the US Navy can sail ships through and keep vital sea lanes open for everybody else?
That's why Trump's policy is perplexing.
Yeah, this. Simply by establishing and being the passive force behind international law, America puts itself first. Because international trade is how America works, how it benefits best.
Trump’s “America First” is more like “We’re in it for ourselves, and everyone else can do as they please”. Which is the worst possible environment for international trade, and therefore the worst possible environment for America.
I think we've discussed this a few times before, but is anyone really surprised anymore when strong anti-gay legislators end up being convicted of sex crimes?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/28 02:40:24
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/04/28 02:41:31
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: So, I welcome Fiorina/Cruz a chance to push this back into the sunlight, because the PP & supporters would love nothing more than to stop talking about it.
The "sunlight" of coming in second behind Donald Trump and never being President.
Look, it's great that you're jumping back on the Fiorina bandwagon again after quietly jumping ship a couple of months ago. But don't worry, I'm sure they'll be a distant memory come November when you pull the lever next to Donald Trump's name... "Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia," and all that.
Nope... not pulling that Trump lever.
I'm writing in Cthulu and then voting conservatives downticket.
I'm ambidexterous that way.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/28 02:51:55
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: Trump does have a valid point that NATO countries aren't spending their fair share (he's not the first one to notice, for sure), and this is an issue Clinton had better not give him any ground on. These countries really do need to be carrying their established share of the burden, and this shouldn't be a partisan issue.
Yeah, definitely agreed on this one. And not just NATO, but other major players. Japan is starting to come to town on this issue, but there’s other players in the Pacific that also need to commit to spend the money for greater capabilities and not just rely on the US.
For what it’s worth Australia is now committing a 3% target for defence spending. But it’s been handled very badly, instead of identifying capability requirements and then allocating the funding that is needed, we’ve just decided that this is giant pile of cash defence will get. So expect that we’ll likely get a lot more backroom staff, increasingly generous packages (esp. for senior staff), and few actual new capabilities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Hypothetical: Wished someone named Bill (no, not Clinton) would run as the top ticket and Cruz as his VP... then we can have a "Bill & Ted Adventure" campaign.
We almost had Abbott and Costello and one point. It didn't happen, and it would have been Costello and Abbott (as Costello would have been PM in that setup)... but still.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Yeah, because you just *know* HP would still be the same giant, successful company had Carly not been the CEO at the time... say, what's the next winning lotto number?
So, her success in business, the reason she has a national profile in the first place, basically comes down to 'sure, HP tanked while Fiorina was in charge, but it might have tanked as badly anyway'. I’m not sure that’s what I’d want to run on or vote for, tbh.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/28 03:23:37
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/04/28 03:43:46
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Hypothetical: Wished someone named Bill (no, not Clinton) would run as the top ticket and Cruz as his VP... then we can have a "Bill & Ted Adventure" campaign.
We almost had Abbott and Costello and one point. It didn't happen, and it would have been Costello and Abbott (as Costello would have been PM in that setup)... but still.
Heh... late night comedy shows would've had plenty of materials.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Yeah, because you just *know* HP would still be the same giant, successful company had Carly not been the CEO at the time... say, what's the next winning lotto number?
So, her success in business, the reason she has a national profile in the first place, basically comes down to 'sure, HP tanked while Fiorina was in charge, but it might have tanked as badly anyway'. I’m not sure that’s what I’d want to run on or vote for, tbh.
HP wouldn't be this powerhouse if it wasn't her initiative to acquire Compaq. That's taking a tough call to do what she believed was the best course for HP. The current HP CEO said as much.
Besides, her tenure at HP isn't her only work experience ...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/28 03:44:37
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/28 04:25:26
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: HP wouldn't be this powerhouse if it wasn't her initiative to acquire Compaq. That's taking a tough call to do what she believed was the best course for HP. The current HP CEO said as much.
Possibly. Personally I’ve got a lot of problems any time a CEO, or team coach or anyone else like that, is given direct credit for team performance. It’s called attribution error, and it’s everywhere.
So if Fiorina got to the presidential stage through state and congressional politics, and it was her opponents trying to bring up HP, I think there’d be a case for her, and for the argument you made that HP might have struggled under anyone else as well. But she has no other time in office, it’s just HP and then some failed elections. HP is what she’s got and she refers to it all the time, and so it makes sense to point out that your claim that HP might have sucked under someone else is, well, not a selling point.
Besides, her tenure at HP isn't her only work experience ...
Yeah, she had a good resume before HP, but she was never CEO anywhere else, and that’s pretty much all that matters. You don’t get on the national stage by being a good President of Corporate Operations.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/04/28 05:02:02
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: HP wouldn't be this powerhouse if it wasn't her initiative to acquire Compaq. That's taking a tough call to do what she believed was the best course for HP. The current HP CEO said as much.
Possibly. Personally I’ve got a lot of problems any time a CEO, or team coach or anyone else like that, is given direct credit for team performance. It’s called attribution error, and it’s everywhere.
So if Fiorina got to the presidential stage through state and congressional politics, and it was her opponents trying to bring up HP, I think there’d be a case for her, and for the argument you made that HP might have struggled under anyone else as well. But she has no other time in office, it’s just HP and then some failed elections. HP is what she’s got and she refers to it all the time, and so it makes sense to point out that your claim that HP might have sucked under someone else is, well, not a selling point.
Besides, her tenure at HP isn't her only work experience ...
Yeah, she had a good resume before HP, but she was never CEO anywhere else, and that’s pretty much all that matters. You don’t get on the national stage by being a good President of Corporate Operations.
CEO sets the tone and leads. They need to inspire upper management and downward.
So, yeah it *is* teamwork, but don't discount what a good (or bad) leadership a CEO can provide.
It's not "nothing" with respect to whether or not a person can also be a good statesmen/women in politics.
Here's her relevant background…she was chosen to be VP at At&T where she did an amazing job.
Then was chosen to be CEO of Lucent, again an amazing job.
Then, if you objectively take a look...as CEO of HP, it's argued that she made the tough call for the strategic longevity for the company.
Here are the facts pre-Compaq merger, HP was on the ropes, it was losing market share and was behind the times...
This was a time where PC were becoming ubiquitous and HP desktop/laptop sucked balls. The server / printer market was the backbone at HP, but were facing serious competition.
Compaq PCs at the time were really good, but their server business were very *meh* (gave me griefs when I supported them).
Her merger with Compaq is now credited with not only saving HP, but making it the powerhouse company that it is today.
And yeah, she was skewered by the press for the layoffs and the PR aftermath is a textbook example of what NOT to do in an acquisition... you should look it up as it was epically fugly.
But what she did was strengthened the computer side and solidified the printer business…which they went from something like 2 patents a week to 11 patents a week (or something like that), and most of those were in the printer side.
She's credited with opening up Central and South America to the HP printing business, a huge move, that solidified that market area.
When the dot-com bubble burst in the late 1990s, a shock wave went through every high-tech board room in the U.S. CEOs were faced with critical decisions that would affect their companies' future for years to come. Many simply hunkered down to wait out the recession. Some, like Intel, doubled down on research and development and capital spending to increase new product flow.
Under Carly Fiorina, Hewlett-Packard recognized that the computer industry needed consolidation and engineered the largest high-tech merger in history, combining HP and Compaq. There were plenty of skeptics to the bold actions taken by HP. But history has a way of straightening out the facts and the noted opinions of outside experts.
The merger of HP and Compaq was an unqualified success. It helped transform HP into the largest computer manufacturer in the world and provided a strong foundation for HP's current success under its very capable management team.
Carly Fiorina, the architect of the HP-Compaq merger and now a candidate for U.S. Senate, deserves great credit for her actions while CEO of HP. She understood the challenges of the marketplace, the dangers of the status quo, and the need for companies to move forward with bold actions to ensure their success.
As CEO of Intel at the time, I remember watching those plans unfold with more than casual interest, as HP and Compaq were two of Intel's largest customers. It was a ringside seat to an industry-changing event. It wasn't always pretty, but it was carefully planned and well-executed, and the bottom-line result was exactly on target.
Throughout the merger, Carly had her detractors. Some of them persist even today. It has been said that she abandoned the original vision of HP founders Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard and that she ignored their core values like "meaningful innovation," "speed and agility," and "a passion for customers."
From my perspective, these critiques just do not match the facts. HP has always been and still is an innovative company bringing great products into the market. HP has always been customer-focused. What did change was a dramatic move to ensure HP's future in a world where living in the past and refusing to move forward was a recipe for mediocrity or worse.
Today, HP is a stronger company because of Carly Fiorina's bold action. Certainly some of this credit goes to current management, who capitalized on the changes Carly made. But it was Carly who shook up the status quo. She engineered the merger. She restructured the combined company. She positioned HP to gain market share, and she deserves credit for standing up to the naysayers and critics to achieve the positive end result.
In the current political campaign, many accusations have been leveled against her and her tenure at HP. As someone who knows the industry well and was there watching all the details, I have to respectfully disagree.
Carly Fiorina, who started her career as a receptionist and rose to be the first woman to run a Fortune 20 company, tackled the most difficult issues and brought exactly the right approach to a company that would have faced a more uncertain future otherwise. Despite what others might say, I suspect the two giants who started HP — who were in their own right daring, strong-willed and tenacious — would approve.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/28 05:16:08
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/28 05:10:04
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If the voters believe that the only way to participate in the aptly named participatory democratic process is to turn up on a pre-determined day to vote, and then complain after the fact about their limited choices then truly, voters get the government they deserve.
It's amazing the way you continually shoot yourself in the foot, and say "fallacy" when you get called on it.
whembly wrote: CEO sets the tone and leads. They need to inspire upper management and downward.
So, yeah it *is* teamwork, but don't discount what a good (or bad) leadership a CEO can provide.
You misunderstand. Attribution error isn’t thinking the CEO matters, it’s thinking the CEO matters a lot more than they really do. In this case the error is ‘HP lost revenue and profits and had to shed jobs, therefore the CEO was bad’. That’s attribution error, because the CEO could have done everything right, but it was just a tough time to be in computer manufacturing.
Then was chosen to be CEO of Lucent, again an amazing job.
Then, if you objectively take a look...as CEO of HP, it's argued that she made the tough call for the strategic longevity for the company.
She wasn’t CEO at Lucent. And ‘it’s argued’ is nonsense. Of course people trying to build her brand are going to argue a case in her favour. Similarly, ‘it’s argued’ that she was a disaster at HP, because of the Democrats are going to try and hurt her brand.
What matters isn’t what is argued, but what is true. And what is true is that HP is a highly complex company with an incredible amount of moving parts, and even if you or I was to go and sit down and spend weeks studying press releases and speaking to past and current staff, we’d still not have that great an understanding of exactly how HP was travelling before Fiorina, or how much she managed to make things worse or better why she was there.
So instead we pick simple narratives that support our side. You believe what ‘is argued’ by your side, I believe what ‘is argued’ by my side. Well, I try not to, and I urge you to try and not do that as much as possible as well.
So as to whether Fiorina was actually a successful CEO, well let’s just admit we don’t know. But what we do know is how you her record will be sold. She will run on ‘first female CEO of an F20’, and that’s a hell of a claim. Then the other side will come back with ‘merger, mass layoffs, plummeting share price’, and those are also good hits. Then… what? Fiorina comes back with a bunch of talk about patent counts and how well the share price is doing after she left?
What I’m saying is that story is tough to sell to voters. Remember about 100 pages back when I was talking about how the side that needs more than a sentence to get their view across is going to lose? Yeah.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/04/28 07:50:28
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
yellowfever wrote: Honest question. What's wrong with a American wanting America first. Shouldn't all countries look after themselves first.
It's an interesting question. I think the first point is what does America First mean?
Does America First mean aggressively promotion of American interests at the expense of everyone else's.
What are America's interests? It used to be said that the business of America is Business. That hasn't worked out too well for the bottom 80% of the US population over the past 40 years. Why should those people support America First if it brings them no rewards?
sebster wrote: ‘merger, mass layoffs, plummeting share price’, and those are also good hits.
Sorry, in my book, any CEO that resorts to mass layoffs is not a good fit for public office regardless of how the company does afterwords. I understand why they do it, and it's good for business, but business and government are two different animals.
(more)
(building)
(less)
