Carly Fiorina


Mikee

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ban abortions after Five months of gestation? I would generally agree with that, but I have a quibble with one thing Carly said. No one disagrees that a fetus is always alive. What some disagree on is when IS a fetus a person with rights under the Constitution? For that to occur a functioning brain needs to be present and thought must be occurring and that is around the 26th to 28th week of gestation, not 20. And viability outside the womb is also a consideration for citizenship. But five months or 20 weeks is an OK time to agree on rights because the baby can feel pain and react to sounds around then, if I am not mistaken.

Carly also portrays herself as a political outsider like Trump and Carson. I think she is very intelligent but her manner of speaking is a bit monotonous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ban abortions after Five months of gestation? I would generally agree with that, but I have a quibble with one thing Carly said. No one disagrees that a fetus is always alive. What some disagree on is when IS a fetus a person with rights under the Constitution? For that to occur a functioning brain needs to be present and thought must be occurring and that is around the 26th to 28th week of gestation, not 20. And viability outside the womb is also a consideration for citizenship. But five months or 20 weeks is an OK time to agree on rights because the baby can feel pain and react to sounds around then, if I am not mistaken.

Carly also portrays herself as a political outsider like Trump and Carson. I think she is very intelligent but her manner of speaking is a bit monotonous.

You need to go back to "rights." "Rights under the Constitution" may or may not be coincident with human rights in the Lockean-Randian tradition.

And Rand's definition of a "right"? Hey, tell us about it! I mean, are you an Objectivist or a conservative? No Objectivist--or in my case Objectivist-libertarian--who actually is one refers to rights the way you're referring to rights. You are implicitly accepting the premise that they are granted.

Rights are simply a human invention respecting the nature of human nature which is not invented. Rights are right by right for intiation of physical force is wrong--initiation against what or whom? A socially functioning human being and that person needs a social context.

This means a woman has a right to an abortion and not that a fertilized human egg has a right to life. The right-to-lifers only make sense when they bring in created and granted by "God." They are utterly disinterested in any other right. If they weren't they couldn't maintain their silly fiction for they'd run smack, dab into Rand or Locke.

What the Declaration of Independence means is not that rights were granted by "the Creator"--that's pr for God lovers--but reflect the nature of reality respecting human nature. We can say humans are reality consequent. It's implicit pantheism. There's no putting this kind of mumbo-jumbo into a Declaration of Independence--not a document addressed both to the great unwashed and the King of England. In spite of the sophistication of the Founding Fathers, this country was not nor has it ever been sophisticated in the aggregate. The Declaration is an extremely sophisticated document. It swept in everybody from the next door to village idiotism to those doing the most advanced political-philosophical thinking. Unfortunately, no one anticipated the dumb and dumber feasting on the right to life-ism to the exclusion of all else--not that it would have made any difference. Even a village idiot will have his way, and they aren't village idiots. They are dangerous God ideologues. The right to a abortion becomes the right to kill an unborn baby just because it is still inside the mother? That's opposite ideological thinking from the God people's. When ideologues collide no one gives an inch for one inch given means you lose.

--Brant

after the first tri-mester we can start the conversation about the mother and her unborn child for the right to life for the mother herself is also the right to an abortion derivatively from that most basic right, but the issue begins entering a grey area that gets darker and darker, deeper and deeper into the pregnancy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant has heard this all before but for the uninitiated I will repeat myself.

Brant wrote: after the first tri-mester we can start the conversation about the mother and her unborn child for the right to life for the mother herself is also the right to an abortion derivatively from that most basic right, but the issue begins entering a grey area that gets darker and darker, deeper and deeper into the pregnancy.
end quote

Agreed. I am not a deist but by saying that rights are endowed by god is a way to shorten the debate. I agree it is a social and political convention and if a person infringes on the rights of others then those others need not agree that the infringer’s rights should be observed. If a bank robber shoots at a guard the guard should shoot the robber and be given a medal. In a constitution it is acceptable to use endowed by god rather than the much longer philosophical argument. Likewise, if it looks like a human baby, is alive and crying and looking at you, then it is a person. Both of those shortcuts are acceptable.
As to the very rational concept of *personhood* I defer to Roger Bissell’s arguments. I think our greatest philosophical agreement, Brant, would be that I do not think “a person” exists at conception. Rather a *person* with rights exists when a person is actually there, which is when the embryo starts to think around the 24th to 28th week after conception. My personal philosopher Ayn Rand, paraphrasing Aristotle’s Logic, called this the law of identity, or *A is A.* Which means that A is not Non-A, nor Negative A.

The scene opens at a hospital nursery. A delivered baby is placed next to an aborted but living baby of the same age and development. A doctor just coming on shift looks at the babies and sees no difference. They are both guaranteed rights under the Constitution.

Rand’s original stance is expressed in, “Of Living Death,” The Voice of Reason, 58–59:An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).
end quote

What many fail to acknowledge is that her stance DID BECOME MODIFIED CONTEXTUALLY. She later wrote in “A Last Survey,” The Ayn Rand Letter, IV, 2, 3: One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . .
end quote

Would Ayn Rand support a Planned Parenthood doctor’s right to abort a THINKING baby and sell its body parts? I don’t think so, because fMRI’s show that a conscious fetus, sleeps, dreams and can redirect its attention. The fact of personal identity is primary: it is self-evident to you that you exist. You are conscious. You remember. Outside of Science Fiction, personal identity in yourself or others can be demonstrated, through brain wave patterns and physical presence. Sound is present in the womb and the baby pays attention to the sounds it hears, and remembers them.

The persistence of consciousness from its inception onwards, is self-evident. It exists at some point and does not cease to exist until death (which could also be complete and irreversible mental loss, though the body lives on.) A conscious baby in the womb is the same conscious baby out of the womb, and it will grow into the same conscious adult: this embodies the Law of Identity.

If Ayn Rand were thinking with today’s context SHE WOULD AGREE WITH ME. What a wondrous time it would be if Ayn revisited all of her works and within today’s context she could make her writings *justified* and *true*.
Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A drunk comatose in the street doesn't have a "right" to be pulled out of the traffic. A accident victim in a coma for months doesn't have a "right" for people to care for them until they retain consciousness. What if the accident victim is on the public dole (no insurance or savings)? Pull the plug? Are they non-persons because they don't have functioning brains? Does a soon to be born human have less potential or more potential than the above examples? Would a Marxist decide an incorrigible free market advocate has zero potential as a good citizen [a non-functioning brain] and harvest his organs for the good of society?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike E. wrote: A drunk comatose in the street doesn't have a "right" to be pulled out of the traffic.
end quote

Here is a related concept From Wikipedia: Good Samaritan laws offer legal protection to people who give reasonable assistance to those who are injured, ill, in peril, or otherwise incapacitated. The protection is intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. An example of such a law in common-law areas of Canada: a good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for wrongdoing. Its purpose is to keep people from being reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions should they make some mistake in treatment. By contrast, a duty to rescue law requires people to offer assistance, and holds those who fail to do so liable.

And here is *a duty to rescue* concept from the same source, Wikipedia: A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril. In common law systems, it is rarely formalized in statutes which would bring the penalty of law down upon those who fail to rescue. This does not necessarily obviate a moral duty to rescue: though law is binding and carries government-authorized sanctions, there are also separate ethical arguments for a duty to rescue that may prevail even where law does not punish failure to rescue.
end quote

End of life concepts are a whole other basket of weevils.

Mike E. wrote: An accident victim in a coma for months doesn't have a "right" for people to care for them until they retain consciousness . . . . Pull the plug? Are they non-persons because they don't have functioning brains?
end quote

After a considered amount of time and after a medical opinion then after a bit more time . . . yes, then that is a body but not a person. Pull the plug.

Mike E. wrote: Does a soon to be born human have less potential or more potential than the above examples?
end quote

Yes. The exception would be encephalic babies with no brain. I was required to visit a *take care of castaways facility* for a college course. One 16 year old girl needed to be confined. She was tied down in a wheel chair with a box built around her feet because she would kick anyone passing by. She was nearly brainless and extremely violent. Periodically the doctors would sedate her and put her broken feet in castes. When she was heeled she would kick out and break her feet again. If a society passed a law to put her out of her misery . . . ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may have something to work with, Peter. We would have to replace "social context' in the definition of a right with an ability to exist outside the womb even though still within the womb, in that outside the womb is social while inside is biological. Decades ago I got into an fight with an anti-abortionist in Petr Beckmann's dial up site Ft Freedom (google that site and my name for the archived site) in which I posited born alive aborted babies would be considered pre-mature deliveries even to the point of placing them into artificial wombs.

Humans invented rights for humans needed rights because of their nature as humans and the need and general occurrences of ongoing social existence free from force one to another. That's no right to life from God giving or making life; that's Zeus come to a mortal woman's bed and impregnating her as she sleeps who gives birth to more than a man and less than the Father in a convulsion of orgasmic patriarchy even to the point of the King (on earth) getting first dibs on the bride on her wedding night.

All Christianity did was replace a bunch of gods with one big God which in turn re-enforced state rule by mixing up politics with the more powerful religion and as God was made bigger so was the King--with one caveat: the King had to acknowledge God just like anybody else down-on-his-knees which in turn created moral equivalence such as no mater how humble a man's home is his castle. This opened the door to political and moral rights individualistic philosophy. Individuslism is not apart from loved ones and social interactions and need therefore, but some Aspe types may have picked that up from the much too severely rendered, qua human, Howard Roark et al.

--Brant

and the war goes on as the statists have given up statist un-defendable (by them, anyway) philosophy for simple physical fascism and bribery and a reversion to Rome before Christianity which is why, in a way, we need Christianity back to help put down the statists

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant wrote: We would have to replace "social context' in the definition of a right with an ability to exist outside the womb even though still within the womb, in that outside the womb is social while inside is biological.
end quote

Adam might agree because he once wrote:
Therefore, there are two (2) bright lines that you are establishing for rights to exist in the entity inside the womb: 1) separation from the mother's corpus; and 2) viability.
end quote

It is a thorny issue because a woman has a right to her body, but it is not unconditional. Should a mother be made to continue with a pregnancy, if the baby is thinking inside the womb and viable outside the womb? As science progresses the moral issue remains for her and the ethical issue remains for her doctor and for the LAW. I would say she has no right to a dead baby. If we could beam the baby out as in science fiction it would be less of an issue, because in todays reality a womans body needs to be subjected to either induced labor or a caesarean section to achieve separation.

Should a mother be held responsible for harming her baby in the womb? Tough one, but there are existing laws against mothers who have crack babies, and alcoholic mothers still have babies with facial deformities. In many states mentally deficient females who are institutionalized are sterilized before they reach puberty, so in that instance they are subjected to a medical procedure to not have harm come to a child they might have. Draconian? I dont think so. It is necessary but regrettable.

I wonder what Carlys stand is on capital punishment? I almost dont need to ask about Donald Trumps. Tracinski called him a rich Archie Bunker. That is funny but now the candidates are chronicling their policies and I am finding it easier to truly support more of them. At some point in the polls many of us will be ready to support a candidate who CAN WIN! And it might be Carly.
Peter

In January 1963, Nathaniel Branden published this on p.3 of THE OBJECTIVIST NEWSLETTER: "What is the Objectivist stand on capital punishment?

In considering this issue, two separate aspects must be distinguished: the ~moral~ and the ~legal~.

The moral question is: Does the man who commits willful murder, in the absence of any extenuating circumstances, ~deserve~ to have his own life forfeited? Here, the answer is unequivocally: ~Yes~. Such a man deserves to die -- not as "social revenge" or as an "example" to future potential murderers -- but as the logical and just consequence of his own act: as an expression of the moral principle that no man may take the life of another and still retain the right to his own, that no man may profit from an evil of this kind or escape the consequences of having committed it.

However, the ~legal question~: Should a legal system employ capital punishment? -- is of a different order. There are grounds for debate -- though ~not~ out of sympathy or pity for murderers.

If it were possible to be fully and irrevocably certain, beyond any possibility of error, that a man were guilty, then capital punishment for murder would be appropriate and just. But men are not infallible; juries make mistakes; ~that~ is the problem. There have been instances recorded where all the available evidence pointed overwhelmingly to a man's guilt, and the man was convicted, and then subsequently discovered to be innocent. It is the possibility of executing an ~innocent~ man that raises doubt about the legal advisability of capital punishment. It is preferable to sentence ten murderers to life imprisonment, rather than sentence one innocent man to death. If a man is unjustly imprisoned and subsequently proven to be innocent, some form of restitution is still possible: none is possible if he is dead.

The problem involved is that of establishing criteria of proof so rationally stringent as to forbid the possibility of convicting an innocent man.

It should be noted that the legal question of capital punishment is outside the sphere of philosophy proper: it is to be resolved by a special, separate discipline: the philosophy of law."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking under capital punishment I found two interesting letters.
Peter


W.E.B. DuBois
The Souls of Black Folk, 1903.
Chapter IX.
Of the Sons of Master and Man
"Daily the Negro is coming more and more to look upon law and justice, not as protecting safeguards, but as sources of humiliation and oppression. The laws are made by men who have little interest in him; they are executed by men who have absolutely no motive for treating the black people with courtesy or consideration; and, finally, the accused law-breaker is tried, not by his peers, but too often by men who would rather punish ten innocent Negroes than let one guilty one escape.

Ulysses S. Grant
Personal Memoirs, 1885-86
Chapter XXVII.
"On the 2d of August I was ordered from Washington to live upon the country, on the resources of citizens hostile to the government, so far as practicable. I was also directed to "handle rebels within our lines without gloves," to imprison them, or to expel them from their homes and from our lines. I do not recollect having arrested and confined a citizen (not a soldier) during the entire rebellion. I am aware that a great many were sent to northern prisons, particularly to Joliet, Illinois, by some of my subordinates with the statement that it was my order. I had all such released the moment I learned of their arrest; and finally sent a staff officer north to release every prisoner who was said to be confined by my order. There were many citizens at home who deserved punishment because they were soldiers when an opportunity was afforded to inflict an injury to the

National cause. This class was not of the kind that were apt to get arrested, and I deemed it better that a few guilty men should escape than that a great many innocent ones should suffer.
end quotes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the Q & E at the Ford Hall Forum appearance of Ayn Rand respecting capital punishment, the moderator, Judge Lurie, assured the audience respecting the issue, that wrongful convictions and executions were extremely rare. This was decades before all those and these ongoing DNA exonerations, etc.

--Brant

and nobody seems much interested to address the ancillary effects, mostly psychological, of executing people although there are reverse considerations, psychological and otherwise, just as civilians really don't understand what happens to their sons going off to war to risk being killed and mained and being damaged in the head from killing people ('war is hell and cruelty and cannot be refined'--garbled Sherman)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I received an email request for money, from Carly today. I sent Rand Paul some do re me about a year ago but none since. Carly talked about the tough time she had at HP with the economy on a downturn. Here is an interesting article.

Peter

Sorting the Candidates. Thomas Sowell | Aug 25, 2015 . . . If next year's election comes down to Clinton versus Trump, a lot of people may simply stay home in disgust . . . . This is Hillary Clinton's last hurrah. It is now or never for her. And the Democrats have nobody comparable as a vote-getter to put in her place. Even if an investigation finds Mrs. Clinton found guilty of violating the law in the way she handled e-mails when she was Secretary of State, the Obama administration is not likely to prosecute her. And President Obama can always pardon her, so that the next administration cannot prosecute her either. So Hillary doesn't even have to take a plea bargain . . . . Someone with a sense of shame might well withdraw from the contest for the Democratic Party's nomination, now that public opinion polls show that most people distrust her. But since when have the Clintons ever had a sense of shame?

On the Republican side, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has pointed out that if Donald Trump can continue to get 20 or 25 percent of the Republican voters on his side, he can build up a formidable lead of delegates in winner-take-all primaries. It will not matter if 60 percent of the Republican voters turn against him, if that 60 percent is split up among all the other Republican candidates, with none of those candidates getting more votes than Trump.

Sometimes financial backers can withdraw their support and force a stubborn candidate to drop out of the race. But Trump has enough money of his own to stay in the race as long as he wants to, even if that ruins the Republicans' chances of winning the 2016 elections. ronically, the Republicans have a much stronger set of presidential candidates than usual to choose from this year. But the media obsession with Trump means that even the best of these candidates are not likely to get enough exposure for most voters to get to know much about them . . . .

But, with the media obsessed with Donald Trump's show biz talents and persona -- and covering everything he says, does or might do, 24/7 -- how are the voters to sort through the large number of Republican candidates to find a couple that are worth getting to know more thoroughly? It will be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. And never was finding that needle, the right leader, more important for the nation.
end quote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe these "voters" might research these candidates on the internet...

I know that may shock you, however, all the world's resources are at their fingertips.

Whose obligation is it for them to inform themselves?

how are the voters to sort through the large number of Republican candidates to find a couple that are worth getting to know more thoroughly? It will be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. And never was finding that needle, the right leader, more important for the nation.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe these "voters" might research these candidates on the internet...

I know that may shock you, however, all the world's resources are at their fingertips.

Whose obligation is it for them to inform themselves?

how are the voters to sort through the large number of Republican candidates to find a couple that are worth getting to know more thoroughly? It will be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. And never was finding that needle, the right leader, more important for the nation.

A...

They could start here....

http://www.theskimm.com/skimm-your-candidate/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carly watch. Evita watch. (which makes Bill Clinton, El Supremo Commandante Juan Peron.) More negative articles are coming out about Fiorina’s time at HP as in, she ruined the atmosphere at HP in one short year.

Democrat. New Hampshire Sanders 42, Clinton 35, Biden 6, Webb 6, O’Malley 4, Chafee 2.

Democrat South Carolina. It’s all Hillary by 50 to 70 percent.

Biden is the wild card.

As of August 26, 2015, how do the Republicans fair in events two and three?

New Hampshire. Trump 35, Kasich 11, Fiorina 10, Bush 7, Walker 7 Carson 6, Rubio 4, Christie 4, Cruz 4, Paul 3, Perry 2, Jindal 0, Graham 1, Santorum 1, Huckabee 0.

A Trump runaway in N.H.

South Carolina. Trump 30, Carson 15, Bush 9, Fiorina 6, Rubio 6, Walker 4, Graham 4, Cruz 5, Paul 3, Kasich 3, Huckabee 2, Christie 2, Perry 0, Jindal 0.

I am surprised at Trump’s lead in South Carolina (and Graham’s dismal 4 percent in his home state.) The SC primary is February 27, almost exactly 6 months away.

Trump will win 1, 2, and 3 as of August 25th.
Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pay me a hundred dollars and I will reveal the secret source of this poll...

Since, as Peter just condescendingly told Greg, this is a "rational" site. Therefore, would it not be rational to provide us with a source for these numbers?

crystal-ball.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Adam. I think it was Real Clear Politics. I was jumping around the net and lost my balance.

I know, you use that source 75% or more.

Just a warning, it is not as reliable as it was five or six years ago.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that last link. So far she's not been hurt. There's too much time for this debate methodology to do but help her just by people talking about it. Who's taking about Walker or Perry? I suspect she needs money most of all. So many of those top ten will soon be gone: Perry, Chrisite, Paul etc.--and they deserve to be.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant wrote: So many of those top ten will soon be gone: Perry, Christie, Paul etc.--and they deserve to be.
end quote

Carly is not out of it yet. She could play a good Madam Secretary.

Brant Bubby, saying they deserve being banished from the primary process, implies you think something is wrong with them. Perry is not a bad guy. He just gets tongue tied. He could play the President in a movie and would be as credible as Harrison Ford. Christie is a bully RINO, so I will agree with you there. Christie could play a wicked prison warden like in The Shawshank Rebellion. But Rand Paul would make a decent POTUS or VP (HIS folksy but smart Kentucky manner would remind you of Morgan Freeman playing the President in the movie Deep Impact) because of his philosophy, his relative youth, and his ardent supporters that he has inherited from his Dad. Now if you mean Ayn Rands and Rand Pauls political platform are not inclusive enough to win in America at this time, I would agree with you. But Rand Paul would be the guy, like Donald Trump, who would shake things up the most.

And a Rand Paul Government would resemble an Objectivist Government to some degree. An Objectivist Government has a monopoly over the retaliatory use of force *conferred upon it by the consent of the governed.* It doesnt snoop excessively on its citizens. It permits various jurisdictional agencies within its territory, as long as those agencies uphold the Constitution guaranteeing individual rights. It does not permit agencies within its territory that are at variance with any provisions of the Constitution. Rand Paul would defend the shores of our country and use trade to spread our philosophical freedom and our prosperity.
Queue the John Williams movie music.
Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just one more thought. Still thinking about Brant’s warning.

Brant wrote: So many of those top ten will soon be gone: Perry, Christie, Paul etc.--and they deserve to be.
end quote

Headlines on August 27, 2015 at Townhall Daily: Small but honest columnist again forced to correct highest-rated show on cable TV by Ann Coulter, His own worst enemy by Derek Hunter, Letter to a friend, Harsh immigration is not why Latinos hate Republicans by Larry Elder, What if Hillary Clinton doesn’t care by Judge Andrew Napolitano, Trump says what he means and means what he says by Jackie Gingrich Cushman, U.S. and UK politics are mirror images, by Cal Thomas, Donald Trump, Eminent domain abuser by Jeff Jacoby, Do you think they really understand the mess we are in by Matt Towery, The Know-Nothing candidate by Paul Greenberg, Donald Trump vs. the party of Septuagenarians, Protectionist Donald Trump is 21st century Herbert Hoover, etc.

Trump is still dominating the news. Carly, Rand, Marco, and Ted deserve our support - think second in the chain of command.
Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now