Hometown: South East Michigan
Home country: United States
Member since: Tue Jul 27, 2004, 01:19 PM
Number of posts: 10,504
Hometown: South East Michigan
Home country: United States
Member since: Tue Jul 27, 2004, 01:19 PM
Number of posts: 10,504
- 2016 (96)
- 2015 (17)
- 2014 (9)
- 2013 (22)
- 2012 (10)
- Older Archives
I am appealing. 84 Recs, but now it has been disappeared from the Greatest Page (posted at 10:17 am this morning.)
ENOUGH! MY *PATRIOTISM* TRUMPS PARTY LOYALTY!!!
I am pretty confident I know why:
ASK THE ADMINS:
On shutting down GDP with a date certain 05/31/2016 @ 8:53 am
It seems premature to declare that the primary will end at the last vote, June 14.
Given the liabilities with Hillary and Bernie's renewed declaration that he will take it to the convention and the unresolved FBI investigation, it is plausible/possible/likely that it will not be finally resolved until a vote on the convention floor.
And there will be countless stories and continuing news between June 14 and July 24, perhaps even major events that turn the race upside down.
For the sake of clarity, to the extent Bernie continues the race beyond June 14 up to and including the convention, where will the primary discussions occur?
Further, discussions of the very real FBI criminal investigation into Hillary's server and its use cannot be construed as "attacking the presumptive nominee," would you agree?
SKINNER REPLY @ 2:36 pm
It all depends on how you do it.
Thoughtful discussions of Hillary Clinton's private email server and how it might affect the campaign: Fine.
Using Hillary Clinton's private email server as a club in order to beat her down: Not fine.
My thread was locked at 4:05 pm.
Posted by IdaBriggs | Tue May 31, 2016, 04:34 PM (9 replies)
And yes, I am using ALL CAPS in that subject line, because I have SERIOUSLY had ENOUGH of the snide obnoxious comments coming from certain members of this board who don't want to have any SUBSTANTIVE discussions about HILLARY CLINTON'S JUDGMENT!!!
I am currently a Bernie supporter, but for three decades I have voted for Democratic presidential candidates. I am not stupid. I know Trump is a disaster-waiting-to-happen...
And Hillary Clinton's EPIC BAD DECISION MAKING scares me as much as Donald Trump!!!
She supported the Iraq War, and didn't hold the REPUBLICAN administration accountable for LYING us into it (despite that duty as "loyal opposition in a two party system"). She was on the wrong side of marriage equality. The policies she advocated and implemented while Secretary of State created more chaos and death world wide than doing nothing, and that doesn't include planetary environmental concerns created with her promoting "fracking" as a global export.
But it is the "email and private server" situation that has me saying ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NO!!! because it demonstrates the CORROSIVE EFFECT her personal beliefs and management style would have on the government transparency necessary for democracy in this country:
Per the spin, Hillary Clinton valued her PRIVACY and (maybe?) CONVENIENCE more than not only POSSIBLE dangers to NATIONAL SECURITY, but also FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT LAWS.
PRIVACY and CONVENIENCE: Those are not the actions of a person I am willing to make "Commander In Chief" of people who have agreed to put their LIVES IN DANGER in service to this country.
IGNORING RULES and COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS: Those are not the actions of a person I am willing to put in charge of the NSA, CIA, FBI and DOJ, where ETHICS AND INTEGRITY are absolute requirements.
THREATENING and IGNORING THOSE WHO SPEAK "TRUTH TO POWER": Those are not the actions of a person I am willing to put in charge of ANYBODY. When subject matter experts are ignored or people FEAR coming forward as whistleblowers or when protections like "Inspector General" positions are intentionally left vacant or when people who catch government officials in wrongdoing either end up in jail or have to flee the country, I want those issues FIXED, and I don't mean by silencing the reports - I mean FIXED so that the next people in line don't decide not to report problems.
LYING: Life is too short to spend time parsing the words of someone whose words can't be trusted. The willingness to sacrifice the loyalty of supporters because of a fear of TRANSPARENCY while avoiding PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and obfuscating on issues is completely unacceptable. Every Hillary supporter on this board who believed her when she said she was "following the rules" and "everybody else had private servers" is owed an apology from her because believing her lies made them look like idiots.
SERVICE TO OTHERS: This is a Representative Democracy. The people we elect are there in service to others. The "Federal Records Act" and "FOIA" are intended to provide institutional knowledge and historical information. There is no question Hillary Clinton, for unknown personal reasons, was working to make sure the records she and her staff created were not part of that public record. That is a Red Flag they are doing something wrong. Obviously, one needs to double check "ignorance and stupidity" are not involved, but after that, "judgment, ethics and behavior" follow, and FAIL in those categories is written all over this episode.
The State Department is NOT a "PRIVATE BUSINESS" - it is a government department intended to benefit the entire country, and "we the people" are the owners. Every citizen in this country has a right to know what is going on there both currently and historically, with obvious caveats for diplomacy and national security temporarily in place. The same concerns apply to the office of President. Knowledge is Power, and Power in this country belongs to the People.
I am a Democrat, but I am a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN FIRST. I will ALWAYS put the NEEDS of my country over the WANTS of my party, and if "my party" wants me to do anything differently, I will bolt out of the room so fast, it will make your head spin, and then I will take any treasonous bastard who tries to enable such corruption of Democratic principles down as well.
We are currently in "Primary Season" and those of us raising these LEGITIMATE CONCERNS about whether or not ANY CANDIDATE should be allowed the HONOR AND PRIVILEGE of leading this country are doing our PATRIOTIC DUTY AS CITIZENS. It is my privilege to vote, my responsibility to be informed, and my duty to use good judgment.
Hillary or Bernie or Trump or Other: I am not going to support a candidate for President who can't be trusted to safeguard and protect the lives, rights and freedoms of our citizens, our country, and the principles of our democracy.
I am a Democrat. That is what Democrats DO.
And anybody who says differently can go perform inappropriate anatomical acts on themselves.
Posted by IdaBriggs | Tue May 31, 2016, 10:17 AM (87 replies)
Here is the story...and it is long!
So, I am one of the many people who already knew Hillary has been lying through her teeth about her email and private server situation before the "official formal confirmation" via the State Departments Inspector General report came out last week, but honestly, not until mid-March of this year.
Honestly, I had been tuning out "email stuff" along with anything related to "Benghazi" because I thought it was Republican whining. Granted, they hadn't been whining about her performance prior to Benghazi, but I *assumed* they just were starting things up again because maybe they were bored or something. Frankly, 2013 was still too early for me to believe they were gearing up against Hillary as a potential presidential candidate -- way too early, right? In hindsight, I realize they were doing what they were supposed to as "loyal opposition in a two party system" but it is still annoying sometimes, right?
So when I read a thread entitled so here's what we know from the newest dump of HRC emails. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511509720) on March 16, 2016 I was really surprised. I did not know about Sid Blumenthal, or him being banned from the White House, or his business contacts in Libya, or him getting paid by the Clinton Foundation!
Then I read Clinton Foundations biggest beneficiaries are the Clintons (http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511513340) on March 17, and my suspicions grew.
I started following threads here at DU on the topic, and began putting the pieces together. It was extremely upsetting. I have a thirty year IT background, and the more I read, the worse it looked.
IT Trivia: a "personal email account" is a different thing than a "private server in a basement"; pretending they are the same and "all the other Secretaries did it" is a Big Red Not Telling The Truth Flag.
Finally, on April 4, 2016 I wrote Hillary's Email Scandal for Non-Techy People (http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511643968) which hit the Greatest Page with 101 recs. I really need to update that thread. Sigh.
The more I read, the worse it got. The FBI was keeping a pretty tight lid on things, but leaks were getting out via reputable sources, and everything kept getting confirmed.
-- Her IT guy was given immunity.
-- The hacker was extradited.
-- The law was excruciatingly clear.
By April 22, 2016 I was actually having to chew on some crow when I discovered actual reporting from two FOX News reporters. The world had officially gone mad! I shared the leaks here on a thread titled Hillary People - Trash this Thread; Others - Consider it FYI (http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511810912) with appropriate caveats, and it received 131 recs.
I still had policy issues with Hillary (I won't link to those posts, but they are in my journal). Meanwhile, DUer PaulThompson of the famous "911 Timeline" began working on a similar project for the "Hillary Clinton Email Scandal" and reading it turned me officially wrathful.
I wrote She's SUCH A LIAR. And she thinks people are STUPID. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511880685) on May 2, 2016 and it hit 226 recs. It should also be updated. Sigh.
My "speaking truth to DU" came with a price: a new level of "alert stalking" was created especially for me and shared in the Hillary Group. Please alert this post to the administrators. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1107122402) was written the same day, and received 15 recs. Other posts of mine began to be alerted with regularity; most failed, but today my transparency page shows. I am okay with that -- none are abusive or inappropriate, although my scorn for the "corporate whore" nonsense was particularly biting.
But let me also hasten to add a very good thing in this story: my appreciation for this community, which I shared in a very special post on May 8, 2016 My 10,000 Post & Almost 12 years on DU! (http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511924563). This is a good place!
I've really distracted from the point of this story, haven't I? How those lazy bastard FBI folk cost me $5 and a pizza? Well, it goes back to Hillary. You see, the more I read, the more convinced I became that there is no way in Hell this woman is going to be our nominee because I think the FBI is going to recommend she be indicted. All the dates I was reading kept sayin "May" so I put my money where my mouth was, and made a few "fifty cent" bets that she would either be indicted or out "due to personal problems" before Memorial Day, with the proceedings going to DU. Oh, and the same bet with a dear friend for some awesome local pizza.
And I was wrong!!!
Those folks are still doinking around -- they've interviewed the aides, done a plea deal with the hacker, granted immunity to the IT guy, and even have the official report from the State Inspector General - why are they taking so long?
So, as an honorable person, I have now donated my $5 to DU and will be making my "pizza payoff plans". It's the right thing to do, and DU is totally worth it.
I still think the indictment is on its way. I think it would have been good for everyone to have their desks cleared before the holiday, but I can be sympathetic about a nice long weekend break with the family before the shit storm hits. Plus, I think the "gently breaking that Hillary has been lying" strategy with the State Inspector Generals report is a good one; the media has been propping her as the Annoited One since last year, and the shift is going to be painful for many people.
So yes, I still believe in the "Indictment Fairy" as some choose to call it. As I said earlier today,
"I *expect* her to be indicted; I will be *shocked* if she isn't. <snip> If the FBI does indict on RICO, I will actually be relieved because it will calm me down about "separate rules for the rich" and make me feel safer about being protected from criminal enterprises in the government."
I am still supporting Bernie Sanders, and trusting the owners of this site will figure out a way to maintain the community they have built while remaining true to their mission of supporting Democrats. I will not be happy if I end up banned and I am personally clueless as to how they will be able to play the "don't say anything bad about Hillary" game when there is going to be nothing except bad news about her until this situation is over. I am sure they have already discussed the headaches they anticipate, and I am somewhat cheered by the fact that is not my headache to deal with -- DU is not a democracy; it is a message board.
And despite my disappointment in the FBI not just finishing it up already, I am okay with DU getting my $5.
But if the FBI and DOJ drop the hammer this week, those guys are seriously going to owe me some pizza because the good stuff is NOT cheap!
Posted by IdaBriggs | Mon May 30, 2016, 01:34 PM (90 replies)
I don't buy it. I've seen the woman talk (granted, in debates and on YouTube) and she just isn't that good.
I've heard inspirational speakers before. I've even paid for their books: Jack Canfield, Stephen Covey, Tony Robbins, John Grey, Wayne Dwyer, Deepak Chopra, Zig Ziglar, Mary Morrissey, Oprah Winfrey - the list is long. These people are inspiring in their wow! factor. I've heard the Dali Lama and Pope Francis can also give an amazing talk...
And none of them get a quarter million dollars for an hour long talk.
So, please understand, when I ask about "Hillary's Transcripts" for her "Inspirational Talks" to her very specific (Wall Street Only Rich People) audiences, it is because I am being a bit cynical.
At one level, I want to know what she was saying to them that made them happy to pay her that much money multiple times. I can only assume she was using "word of mouth" advertising, because I've never seen an advertisement discussing the advantages of what she'll bring to a meeting (it's called a "one sheet" in the business) and I would love to know "the secrets" she shared: was it how to attain wealth? Personal power? Leadership skills? Relationship advice? And what about the listeners? Do they have any testimonials they want to share about the transformative experience they all shared?
So, please, show us the transcripts!
But the deeper truth is more cynical:
I don't believe they were paying for her speeches.
Yes, I said it: I think it was protection money and some pre-bribery for access to power. I think it was a thin veneer of respectability on corruption.
And I think everyone knows it, but right now, no one can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt - we just know that she's just not that good at being an inspirational speaker, so the speeches were really something else.
I'd really like to see those transcripts to be proven wrong.
But I never will, and everyone knows it.
Posted by IdaBriggs | Mon May 30, 2016, 08:20 AM (30 replies)
It's a line in every article about her. Those with legal experience suspect the Grand Jury has already been convened (one of her IT guys got immunity in March and the hacker just made an "in exchange for testimony" deal), and it's been leaked that others are being targeted, too.
Every time she says "no, the FBI hasn't contacted me" I roll my eyes. It's disingenuous because they are talking to her lawyer, who is also in danger of being in his own world of hurt because she gave him an electronic copy of all of the emails, and at least 22 of them were Super Bad -- hopefully he didn't leave the stick laying around the office.
Plus, why not pick up a phone, and schedule the interview yourself? Why *let* it drag on?
And now that we know that the "second guy who helped with the server" has already racked up hundreds of thousands in legal fees (being paid by the Clintons at the moment), plus her staff, and Blumethal looked like he has already struck a deal to me, the Washington chatter is being reflected on the cable news shows. They have all turned on her simultaneously. Not even a poorly faked anti-gay smear on Bernie was able to deflect this one -- everyone is now bracing to explain to the public why the candidate they've been propping up might be facing criminal charges.
I think Comey is going to make his bones on this case by cleaning up some serious corruption. I'm good with that.
Meanwhile, the ongoing FBI investigation continues....
Posted by IdaBriggs | Sun May 29, 2016, 08:32 AM (87 replies)
As I said in my post:
"There were 193 Democratic members of the House, 47 sitting Senators and 21 Governors to pick from who don't make the Republicans want to grab their pitchforks. Why Hillary?"
With literally HUNDREDS of Democrats in leadership positions in Congress and a nice solid chunk with state wide Executive experience, only TWO - a former Governor from Maryland and an Indepent turned Democratic Senator from Vermont - even stepped forward to be considered, while Hillary (former 8 year Senator, former Secretary of State, and "inspirational speaker" by trade) opened the race with over 500 super delegate votes before the first debate.
That is NOT "the people" picking - that is rigging the process. We know this by pure evidence, because without the back room deals, a dozen Republicans threw their hats into the ring and battled it out. Their nominees might have been whackadoodles, but they actually represented the people of the Republican Party from the uber rich to the bad businessmen to the Ayn Rand fans to the religious lunatics.
Their field actually started with both men, women and multiple minorities. Meanwhile, the Democrats - the party that actually supports minorities and is currently led by an African American man - fielded three white people, with one of them being Jewish. No African Americans, no Latinos, no LGBT - apparently, in those areas we have not cultivated leadership?
And then the money: in AUGUST of 2015, still months before the first Democratic Primary debate on CNN on October 13, and the first Primaries in February, THIRTY-THREE state party chairs entered into a "Hillary for Victory" fundraising scheme that is no less than a money laundering scheme designed to circumvent election fundraising laws. You can read more about it here: http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/460762853/how-hillary-clinton-could-ask-a-single-donor-for-over-700-000 That is NOT the people deciding - that type of soft money game was responsible for corruption cases until it was made illegal, but the Supreme Court gutted those voter protections in 2014 and Hillary AND the DNC promptly took advantage of it, to the point where all of the reforms Obama put in place were reversed.
As for the debates: SIX were scheduled during this Primary, as opposed to FIFTEEN in 2004 and TWENTY-FIVE in 2008. Debates and the discussion analysis that follow provide an introduction for unknown candidates to introduce themselves to the American public. Hillary already had uber levels of name recognition to the non-political junkies as "former First Lady" while the other candidates were still struggling with only regional VIP status.
The people did NOT pick Hillary Clinton; she was PICKED for us. She is at best a default candidate, with polls consistently saying that given other Not-Crazy options, they want someone else.
So I go back to my original question: who arrogantly thought that putting one of the most divisive and disliked politicians up for President, and then saying "ha! ha!" to the Republican base, was going to be good for the country?
Posted by IdaBriggs | Sat May 28, 2016, 08:05 AM (1 replies)
I have spent too much time on DU today, and now I can't sleep. I watched the "Bernie Sanders and Bill Maher Interview" on YouTube earlier, and was struck by the pure class Bernie Sanders was displaying when it came to Hillary's Email Scandal. Bill invited him to comment, and Bernie deflected with "voters aren't interested in seeing us attack each other - they want us to talk about the things that matter to their lives: healthcare, education, housing, income inequality - and the ideas we have for fixing these problems." I'm paraphrasing, but it was just totally on target. And he talked about the dangers of Trump, and how he isn't sure how to discuss issues with a man who changes his mind four times in two days, and the host pointed out the media isn't holding him accountable...and it was just a lovely interview, that made me proud this man was running for President, and that I support him.
Then I came back to DU, and there were some threads asking why Bernie was willing to be interviewed by far right people, and I smiled, because Bernie went to Liberty University, and told them what he thought, and listened to their questions, and answered them. And when Black Lives Matter activists wanted to be heard, he listened to them, too, and he engaged in dialogue, and I think he learned some things from them, too. And that made me remember how, in the interview, Bernie talked about having friends and colleagues in the Senate who are Republicans who AREN'T CRAZY (like Trump is), and he spoke of them respectfully.
And all of these things were bubbling around, and I realize that Bernie is really interested in bringing people together; that he's done that his entire Congressional career by liking people on both sides of the aisle, finding out where they could work together for the greater good, and listening to them. People in Burlington (where he was Mayor) mention this about him: he listened to them about problems ranging from potholes to street lights, and then worked to solve the problems.
That is a rare skill.
Which brings me to his opposition, and a small epiphany about arrogance.
I think it can safely be said that the majority of average Republicans ACTIVELY DISLIKE Hillary Clinton. "Hating Hillary" is an actual industry that is profitable, and has been for (according to her supporters) over twenty-five years. Any critiscm of her in media has to be vetted because there are so many "banned" outlets who are deemed to therefore be untrustworthy due to the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" (tm), and even legitimate concerns are casually dismissed by her supporters as "simply the product of years of smears".
Ignoring the fact this creates a danger of ignoring actual issues, why would the Democratic Party pick someone who half the country hates? Yes, they "hate" President Obama, but the level of vitriol aimed at either Clinton is probably ten times higher.
So why subject half the country to a possible President who is so despised even before the first vote is cast, with the added bonus of "vote for her or the crazy guy destroys the world"?
There is an ARROGANCE to the idea that making half the country "bow to Hated Hillary" is acceptable, or will lesson the divisive nature of our politics or promote tolerance or mutual respect for "loyal opposition".
So, why was she picked? She is viewed more negatively than favorably, has zero policy stands to inspire, and unbelievable amounts of baggage, including an FBI investigation.
There were 193 Democratic members of the House, 47 sitting Senators and 21 Governors to pick from who don't make the Republicans want to grab their pitchforks. Why Hillary?
Why would the Democratic Party establishment run one of the most divisive figures in politics as the "best choice" for the Nation?
When Obama ran against McCain and Romney, I voted for him because I thought the way he wanted to solve problems was better for the country than his opponents. I believed Obama was going to look out for the voters, not the uber-rich, and I trusted him. I think he has done a fantastic job, and I want his successor to take things to the next level.
I don't trust Hillary on pretty much anything she says, and consider her to be a corrosive influence. Those are my opinions, but I keep getting back to why pick someone the other side hates?
Maybe the Democrats really want to keep losing power? What better way to destroy down ticket Dems than by inspiring turnout against a hated opponent?
Maybe the money folk think they can do more fundraising if they are a minority party?
I'm not sure, but I do not think it is respectful to any of us.
Posted by IdaBriggs | Sat May 28, 2016, 02:58 AM (11 replies)
#1: None of the talking heads are smiling about Hillary's email. @ 10:31 am (84 recs)
#2: History: Bush White House email controversy (& DU reaction) @ 3:15 pm (27 recs)
#3: New Yorker: A VERY CLINTON E-MAIL SCANDAL @ 7:52 pm (35 recs)
#4: Hillary Clinton Email Cartoons @ 8:44 pm (24 recs)
ON EDIT: And now this one at 9:02 pm!!! (29 recs)
ON EDIT2: Updated "recs" counts and added --
#6: The Arrogance of Entitlement: Hillary versus Republicans @ 2:58 am (15 recs)
I think I have spent a little too much time on DU today!
But I really appreciate everyone's support, even though I suspect this type of honor makes me a target in any upcoming purges.
In the meantime, THANK YOU, DU!!!
Posted by IdaBriggs | Fri May 27, 2016, 09:02 PM (4 replies)
Inspired by n2doc...
Posted by IdaBriggs | Fri May 27, 2016, 08:44 PM (0 replies)
A VERY CLINTON E-MAIL SCANDAL, The New Yorker, May 28, 2016
Like most political scandals, the real trouble, at least so far, is not anything Hillary Clinton actually did while in office, but how Clinton responded to the initial accusations. Clinton repeatedly maintained that the use of her private e-mail system was normal and approved by the relevant officials at the State Department. The inspector general says thatís not the case.
This Clinton scandal, like many others, including the one involving the health-care task force, has its roots in Clintonís penchant for shielding her government work from public scrutiny. The Clintons are hardly unique in this regard. As the inner workings of government have increasingly been pried open by public laws, such as the Freedom of Information Act, by the investigative machinery of Congress, and by a new generation of whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden, government officials have responded in kind. ďI donít want any risk of the personal being accessible,Ē Clinton wrote to a top aide who recommended that she begin using a State Department e-mail account.
The fact that Clinton did not fully coŲperate with the I.G. investigation (she declined to be interviewed, for example) does not inspire confidence that her Administration would be a model of transparency, but unfortunately thereís little evidence that the politicians who are the most incensed about the issue are also interested in using the episode as a way to strengthen the federal governmentís woefully inadequate commitment to open-records laws.
So this scandal is like so many that have dogged the Clintons: while itís more molehill than mountain, it does genuinely revolve around a serious issue (Clintonís commitment to transparency); her initial response was less than forthcoming; and the critics exaggerating the degree of wrongdoing have demonstrated more interest in damaging her politically than fixing the underlying government-wide problem that the e-mail imbroglio has revealed. Plus Áa change . . . .
Finally, the real danger to Clinton is not about the e-mail system itself, itís about whether she or her aides violated any laws regarding the safekeeping of classified information. That investigation was beyond the scope of the State Departmentís inspector general, and is being looked into by the F.B.I. Weíll know soon enough if itís a real or a fake scandal.
Nope. Not going away soon.
Posted by IdaBriggs | Fri May 27, 2016, 07:52 PM (37 replies)