Carly Fiorina and lies

• News
Mentor
I find it quite scary.
And Carly Fiorina is behind trying to defund Planned Parenthood with false information.
Planned Parenthood's executive vice president and chief experience officer Dawn Laguens told host Caroline Modarressy-Tehrani that Fiorina, who attacked Planned Parenthood in the most recent Republican debate, has been blatantly lying about the organization's practices. After Fiorina declared Tuesday that "politics is a fact-free zone," Laguens asserted that Fiorina's history with Planned Parenthood shows she is quite comfortable straying from the facts herself.

"She would be the best one to speak to that, because she is operating in a fact-free zone when it comes to Planned Parenthood," Laguens said. "She is lying about footage, about Planned Parenthood, [and] she knows it, and she doesn't have a way out."

Laguens was referring to footage in undercover videos released by anti-abortion group The Center for Medical Progress, which claimed to reveal Planned Parenthood was "profiteering in baby parts" and mishandling fetal tissue -- a claim that has since been disproven in Missouri by the state's attorney general.

Fiorina's remarks might strike some as incongruous, since she's recently been accused of making things up herself. Fact-checkers have taken her to task for describing a scene in a controversial, undercover video on Planned Parenthood that does not actually exist. Even some conservatives have conceded that Fiorina's critics have a point.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...fiorina-dawn-laguens_560b0b2ee4b0768126ffb57b

And Carly Fiorina is behind trying to defund Planned Parenthood with false information.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...fiorina-dawn-laguens_560b0b2ee4b0768126ffb57b
Phinds said:
Yeah, I saw her talking about P.P. a day or two ago. This was my first exposure to her rant on that. That woman is disgusting.

Last edited:
rude man, Astronuc, Doc Al and 1 other person

Related General Discussion News on Phys.org
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
I heard about Fiorina's false statements from a friend in California. It became apparent during her candidacy for the US Senate.

More recently - http://www.factcheck.org/person/carly-fiorina/

She gives fantasy fiction a whole new dimension.

rude man
If you would have researched a bit you'd know that it is fake. (response to deleted post by mod)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ting-videos-forensic_55df2334e4b029b3f1b1be9f
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/planned-parenthood-undercover-abortion-sting/

In fact the organisation that spread the clip cut out 2 and a half hours. This is suspicious at best.

So we should incinerate aborted fetuses? Why not stop people from donating their body to science? Heck forbid organ donation while we're at it.
Lets also forget we have a polio vaccine (it used fetal tissue).

As you can probably feel I strongly disagree with your misinformed claim.

Last edited by a moderator:
rude man
WWGD
Gold Member
2019 Award
@JorisL : I think you are actually agreeing with the other posters.

@WWGD there was a post in there about someone getting stating "selling baby parts" as an objection (no proof).
It has since been removed.

mheslep
Gold Member
Jaeusm
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Does this opinion apply to all politicians or just to Fiorina?
Fiorina makes distortion of Planned Parenthood a centerpiece
http://news.yahoo.com/fiorina-makes-distortion-planned-parenthood-centerpiece-070059126--election.html [Broken]
Fiorina has brushed off the facts surrounding her claim as a "technicality."

I think she has a special talent, or perhaps she shares this quality with Trump and Carson.

Mostly false (statistical population rather weak, but . . .)
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ben-carson/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/carly-fiorina/

On the other hand -
Mostly true
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/jeb-bush/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

Last edited by a moderator:
rude man
mheslep
Gold Member
On the other hand -
That ratio is of stories/statements Politifact happened to check, not a veracity check of every spoken word. If one want's Politifact's opinion on the lie-of-the-year (and I don't really) last awarded to a politician, that went to Obama on keep-your-doctor.

Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
That ratio is of stories/statements Politifact happened to check, not a veracity check of every spoken word. If one want's Politifact's opinion on the lie-of-the-year (and I don't really) last awarded to a politician, that went to Obama on keep-your-doctor.
True. It seems that Politifact is rather subjective in what they statements they check. Certainly Politifact's veracity is questionable.

On the other hand, the government didn't cancel policies, the insurance companies did. People can still go to the doctor of choice, if they have he money for premiums or out-of-pocket expenses.

However, in Obama's case, according to Politifact - The stunning political uproar led to this: a rare presidential apology. … At least he apologized. I don't see Trump, Carson and Fiorina acknowledging their falsehoods, even when called out on them, and they seem to continue to make false statements. And they sadly continue to appeal to those who support them.

I think http://www.factcheck.org/ may be more reputable, but I have not done any verification.

mheslep
Gold Member
On the other hand, the government didn't cancel policies, the insurance companies did.
No, the government via the ACA specifically made illegal many of the policies existing in the self-insurance market, several million of them. This is the heart of the "keep your plan" lie, Obama and others knew this was going to happen.

The problem for insurers was that the Obamacare rules were strict. If the plans deviated even a little, they would lose their grandfathered status. In practice, that meant insurers canceled plans that didn’t meet new standards...Obama’s team seemed to understand that likelihood....
.

Sorry off topic ...

Last edited:
phinds
Gold Member
2019 Award
No, the government via the ACA specifically made illegal many of the policies existing in the self-insurance market, several million of them. This is the heart of the "keep your plan" lie, Obama and others knew this was going to happen
I happen to have a particular type of interest in the fiasco surrounding the ACA and particularly the web site role-out and I've paid a lot of attention to this. It's because I spent decades as a technical project manager and the problems around that roll-out came straight out of Project Management 101's list of "DON'T DO THESE THINGS".

russ_watters
Mentor
I like Fiorina's resume a lot and I want to like her, but even if she's just pandering to her base during primary season on an issue that hypes them up even if it doesn't actually go anywhere, this is too far. However, if she wins the primary and then backpedals or softens, I'm not sure how much it will really hurt her if at all. Her biggest problem in the general election would be her resume.

Regarding Politifact and lies in general: politicians are tough to judge and the judgement is very subject to bias. Why? Because politicians by nature are weasels who talk out of both sides of their mouths. It is difficult to know what they actually believe, whether they are gullible as they seem to be (Fiorina, here) and whether they have any intention of keeping their promises. The thing is, though, the last two Democratic Presidents were unusually good at selling their ideas. People gave the benefit of the doubt to and believed Bill (Slick Willy) Clinton and Barack (I want to believe in Change) Obama when they made obviously unkeepable promises for reasons I'll never understand. What makes this upcoming election interesting and problematic for Democrats is that Hillary Clinton won't be getting the faith the last two Democratic Presidents received.

WWGD
Gold Member
2019 Award
I am sorry, but the constant politician-bashing, while often well-deserved, lets the constituents off easy. After all, these politicians do come from the same schools, communities we all come from; if they are weasels, they are _our_ weasels, produced by/within our system. How about the laziness of those who do not want to inform themselves and/or ask the hard questions (of which I am sometimes guilty) . Why is this barely -ever ( at least in my experience) brought up ? Re, e.g., the case of the collapse of Harrisburg Pa. ( you know more about this than I do, Russ Watters ) , where barely no one dared question major Reid(Sp?) ? I am not excusing the actions of the politicians, but they are just one part of the problem. Sorry if this is too far O.T.

EDIT: It is clear that the avg PF poster is well-informed, this is not a criticism directed at PF posters, but more at your average citizen.

Last edited:
rude man and Bystander
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
I saw an interview with Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, whose name was invoked by Donald Trump for Sonnenfeld's criticism of Fiorina, and who was disparaged by Fiorina as a result of his criticism. He has some interesting comments concerning what has been attributed to him by Trump and Fiorina.

According to Sonnenfeld, who is senior associate dean of Leadership Studies and Lester Crown Professor of Practice Management at the Yale School of Management, "Trump did get something right, though: my criticism of Carly Fiorina’s disastrous term as CEO of Hewlett-Packard."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-ceo-jeffrey-sonnenfeld-2016-213163

Sonnenfeld is quite clear that he expresses his own opinions, which are not necessarily shared by his employer or others.

Regarding Fiorina's rags to riches story: Sonnenfeld writes, "She presents her story as rags to riches saga, from secretary to CEO, when in fact she is the daughter of a Duke University Law School dean and a federal Appeals Court judge. She just worked for a few months as a receptionist after dropping out of UCLA law school."

Last edited:
mheslep
Gold Member
Regarding Fiorina's rags to riches story: Sonnenfeld writes, "She presents her story as rags to riches saga, from secretary to CEO, when in fact she is the daughter of a Duke University Law School dean and a federal Appeals Court judge. She just worked for a few months as a receptionist after dropping out of UCLA law school."
So ... she did, in fact, by Sonnefeld's admission go from secretary to CEO, with many steps in between.

Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
So ... she did, in fact, by Sonnefeld's admission go from secretary to CEO, with many steps in between.
I believe the point made by Sonnenfeld is that she came from a modestly wealthy family, and had to have gone to college (before law school), then dropped out of law school and took a job as a receptionist (not that she had to do so). At the time of her birth, Fiorina's father was a professor at the University of Texas Law School.

Fiorina's father, Judge Joseph T. Sneed III, "was dean of the Duke University School of Law from 1971 to 1973, and a law professor at Stanford Law School from 1962 to 1971, and Cornell Law School from 1957 to 1962. He also spent 10 years on the faculty of his law school alma mater, the University of Texas School of Law." President Richard Nixon appointed Judge Sneed to the 9th Circuit Appellate Court in 1973.
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_8280583

Fiorina got her BA at Stanford, probably starting when her father joined the 9th Circuit Appellate Court in 1973. Did she get a good deal since her father was law professor at Stanford? Probably. She apparently worked summers as a secretary for Kelly Services, and then about 6 months as a receptionist at real estate agency after dropping out of law school.

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

Did she support herself while going Stanford and UCLA, and after she dropped out? That would be impressive.

Meanwhile, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Fiorina#Forced_resignation -
In June 2001, Fiorina asked employees to either take pay cuts or use their allotted vacation time to cut additional costs, resulting in more than 80,000 people signing up and saving HP US$130 million. [Following the merger with Compaq], there were no gains in HP's net income despite a 70% gain in net income of the S&P 500 over this period; the HP's debt rose from US$4.25 billion to US$6.75 billion; in the merger proxy, they had forecasted that the PC division of the merged entities would generate an operating margin of 3.0% in 2003, while the actual figure was 0.1% in that year and 0.9% in 2004. Fiorina collected over US$100 million in compensation during her short tenure at HP.

Last edited:
StatGuy2000
I like Fiorina's resume a lot and I want to like her, but even if she's just pandering to her base during primary season on an issue that hypes them up even if it doesn't actually go anywhere, this is too far. However, if she wins the primary and then backpedals or softens, I'm not sure how much it will really hurt her if at all. Her biggest problem in the general election would be her resume.

Regarding Politifact and lies in general: politicians are tough to judge and the judgement is very subject to bias. Why? Because politicians by nature are weasels who talk out of both sides of their mouths. It is difficult to know what they actually believe, whether they are gullible as they seem to be (Fiorina, here) and whether they have any intention of keeping their promises. The thing is, though, the last two Democratic Presidents were unusually good at selling their ideas. People gave the benefit of the doubt to and believed Bill (Slick Willy) Clinton and Barack (I want to believe in Change) Obama when they made obviously unkeepable promises for reasons I'll never understand. What makes this upcoming election interesting and problematic for Democrats is that Hillary Clinton won't be getting the faith the last two Democratic Presidents received.
Russ, what specifically about Fiorina's resume do you like a lot? From what I understand and have read about Carly Fiorina (setting aside for the moment her obvious pandering to the base regarding Planned Parenthood), her signature item in her resume was being a CEO of HP, and to say that her tenure there has been heavily criticized is an understatement -- HP's stock price fell by 50% exceeding the declines in the S&P 500 IT sector index and the NASDAQ, and following her forced resignation, several commentators (including InfoWorld in a 2008 article) have referred to her as among the worst American (and tech) CEOs. See links below.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/2642687/operating-systems/tech-s-all-time-top-25-flops.html

http://www.cnbc.com/2009/04/30/Portfolios-Worst-American-CEOs-of-All-Time.html?page=3

Makes it kind of hard to argue that she's got what it takes to govern a nation, doesn't it?

Now as far as Bill Clinton is concerned, my understanding was that the presence of Ross Perot as an independent candidate split the centre-right vote, drawing supporters away from then President George Bush Senior, and allowing for enough room for Clinton to win despite having only <50% of the popular vote. So I'm not sure how much people gave him the benefit of the doubt.

And it can be argued that Obama, people turned to him both by his fine oratory and by the air of competence that he exhibited, in stark contrast to the incompetence and lack of connection from reality that was the hallmark of second Bush administration.

mheslep
Gold Member
I believe the point made by Sonnenfeld is that she came from a modestly wealthy family, and had to have gone to college (before law school), then dropped out of law school and took a job as a receptionist (not that she had to do so). At the time of her birth, ....
Those are the facts. The facts are not Sonnenfeld's point, which by inserting his own term "rags" into Fiorina's mouth he thereby mis-portrays Fiorina's actual narrative which is simply that she started as a secretary. I don't know what Fiorina's financial options were after college, and I don't know that the public does either.

mheslep
Gold Member
[QUOTE="StatGuy2000, post: 5250469, member: [/quote]... several commentators ... have[/QUOTE]
It may be that some don't select candidates based on the sayings of the several commentators.