Member since: Tue Jan 8, 2008, 09:18 AM
Number of posts: 5,554
Member since: Tue Jan 8, 2008, 09:18 AM
Number of posts: 5,554
I'm a weirdo ginger from Arkansas who hates trolls.
They deserve a round of applause from everyone.
Remember, the Primaries are not supposed to be a fight, but more of a job interview with each voter.
Congratulations, Bernie, the voters in Indiana chose you.
Posted by moriah | Tue May 3, 2016, 09:18 PM (8 replies)
First, I do admire efforts to vet our candidates. I am glad that someone decided to attempt to analyze this to make sure it really wasn't as big of a deal as the GOP wants it to be (because we all know they won't be satisfied until she's burned at the stake).
1) The statement she made under oath very carefully avoided any charge of perjury. Hillary was always a much better lawyer than Bill.
"I have directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done."
2) Being in IT, my biggest concerns over this issue, from the beginning, was why it was ever allowed at all, how it was approved, and if there is any evidence Hillary used undue pressure against State Department IT personnel. Because, see, as was pointed out, using private servers was nothing new, and if regulations had not yet been passed forbidding them, it's entirely possible that she simply asked, IT *STUPIDLY* signed off on it without question, and then it was already there. If so, then the breaches of security are at least as much IT's fault as anyone else's. I would rather hear the truth from any involved under immunity, even if they were *STUPID*, so the fact a tech involed is testifying under immunity doesn't disturb me. I would love to hear what he has to say.
Jumping to conclusions that the request was made nefariously, however, is premature. And undoubtedly while traveling, which the Secretary did a lot of, her BlackBerry was crucial. Since emails on OpenNet, the only kind Hillary could access at all via her BlackBerry, were not supposed to ever contain classified information, yet apparently enough has been found retroactively classified from multiple sources, not just Clinton aides, that suggest either a wide problem with discussion of classified information over OpenNet itself, a breach of the current policies itself, or that many documents have been retroactively classified unnecessary.
3) As an IT person, the difference between a format of a server and a dedicated "wipe" (obvious attempts to sanitize a server) and the ease at which the FBI has been able to retrieve all emails suggests any "wipe" done by Clinton was probably the type designed to simply make the data inaccessible to anyone who attempted to boot the matchine.
One is much less suggestive of malfeasance than the other, even if the best solution had been to *not have the farking server in the first place*.
4) The reason I have to come down on IT is that it's IT's duty to enforce security rules on every luser, even the boss. Many times I've been in the unhappy position, as a contractor so no job security, dealing with district managers for a Fortune 10 retailer in my state, of saying that a certain request couldn't be done because it was an IT security violation, even if it had been that way for years. Usually it was something that had involved sharing his password with his secretary for certain uses/applications, and only discovered when the upgrade I was doing made it clear passwords were being shared.
I carefully explained that the rules didn't permit sharing of passwords, but I was sure there was a way to accommodate their needs within security rules, and tried to work with them. I only got pushback once, at which time I said, "Sir, if you'll pardon me, I need to call my supervisor for guidance on this. Thanks!" Stepped out, called the project leader who was an actual employee of said retailer, explained the situation. He said to go ahead and move on to the next person, and that he would take care of it, for me to come back after about an hour.
I was profusely apologized to, and we found an alternative. Later my boss told me that I had absolutely done the right thing, and that if I hadn't it would have been my job, not the usrrs.... not because they were permanent employees, but knowing the details of IT security wasn't their job -- it was mine.
My boss had my back, and IT security trumps even supervisors, even Secretaries of State. Wherever that chain broke, I want to know. And then hear ther testimony with immunity granted from the start so no undue pressure not to simply tell the truth.
I want to hear from the techs, most of whom probably were left over from the Bush Administration. So may have been rules.
5) Sid Blumenthal's "intelligence" has been described to be very shoddy and questionable. Still, it was the Republicans who refused to let us hear his deposition. Why?
This has all been, admittedly, become a talking point as a direct result of a vendetta against Hillary.
Vetting is good, and yes, the FBI knows it all.
But I, personally, want to wait (kneeling on broken glass as I do praying that if anything substantial had been found earlier that a Democratic-run Administration would have not let the Primary process continue, so hoping there is nothing and revealing that is the October Surprise this year) until they make official statements.
Posted by moriah | Tue May 3, 2016, 12:40 AM (55 replies)
For Civility (talking about and to members of Democratic Underground)
The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.
Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden.
Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult.
Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.
Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.
Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor.
Do not accuse entire groups of people on Democratic Underground of being conservative disruptors, or post messages which spread this type of suspicion. Do not post topics that arouse suspicion against new members, or members with low post counts.
Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member. You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so.
Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board.
You are permitted to post polite behavioral corrections to other members of the message board, in direct response to specific instances of incivility, provided that your comments are narrowly focused on the behavior. But you are not permitted to make broad statements about another person's behavior in general, and you are not permitted to post repeated reminders about another person's mistakes.
You are permitted to criticize public figures, who are not protected under our rules against personal attacks. However, if a public figure is a member of our community, that person is protected by our rules and you are not permitted to personally attack that person. (You are permitted to offer constructive criticism of their activities as a public figure.)
If you do not like someone, please be aware that you have the option of putting that person on your ignore list. Just click the ignore icon on one of their posts.
There are no exceptions to these civility rules. You cannot attack someone because they attacked you first, or because that person "deserved it," or because you think someone is a disruptor. We consider it a personal attack to call a liar a liar, to call a moron a moron, or to call a jerk a jerk.
I can see why Skinner thought we should grow up some and not have to live by a ton of "thou shalt not"s.
Too bad we haven't....
Posted by moriah | Mon May 2, 2016, 04:30 PM (30 replies)
I have been lucky enough to see few posts actually doing so, but even a few are too many.
Because I was her supporter in 2008, and really did believe in her vision, I remember how disappointed I was when I had worked my heart out for a candidate who came so close, but didn't win. It didn't mean I approved of everything she did or said, but I was proud of her for being gracious in defeat once all votes had been counted. I was proud of her that, even in her letter to the Superdelegates asking them to consider her, she said no matter what that she would work to unite the Party.
The people who worked (and are still rightfully working) for Bernie, for his vision and message, are feeling the same things Hillary supporters felt after the math was just no longer sustainable for Hillary. Feeling disappointment, feeling helpless since despite all their work Bernie doesn't have a great shot at winning anymore, feeling voiceless particularly if they haven't been able to cast a vote yet, and feeling like the Party doesn't care about their issues.
The last thing they need to help overcome such feelings is for Hillary supporters to gloat, suggest their vision wasn't a good one (it was), suggest they were insincere, or suggest that just because they can't, just yet, bring themselves to vote for the likely Nominee that they are actually supporting the GOP's values.
For everyone, no matter what another person says or does to provoke us, it's our responsibility to choose our own reactions. There have been horrific attacks against Hillary that, in my opinion, remind me of what I expect to see on Free Republic or Redstate. But if posters like that drive you batty, we have the ignore feature. There's no need to take the low road.
Essentially, if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. That's the best thing Hillary supporters can do right now -- be sympathetic and as a result, take the high road.
On edit, just to be clear, I admire the people who can engage those posting majorly OTT attacks against Hillary without resorting to personally attacking the user saying them. I try -- sometimes with humor, sometimes with facts. But there are some things that have been said that all I can do is alert, and some posters repeatedly saying them that made it better for my serenity to let them have their DU, and let me have mine.
But at some point probably before August (at the latest, Labor Day) this website generally goes into "GE Footing". Whoever our Nominee is, he or she will not be subjected to those attacks on DU then, unless Skinner changes a long-standing TOS provision. People making those attacks repeatedly will lose posting privileges.
Also, there is a difference between being happy for your candidate's win, and happy for another's loss. The only people I might gloat a little (edit: okay, a lot) at their loss have Rs beside their names.
Posted by moriah | Sun May 1, 2016, 12:26 AM (119 replies)
The text of this question will be publicly available after it has been reviewed and answered by a DU Administrator. Please be aware that sometimes messages are not answered immediately. Thank you for your patience. --The DU Administrators
Posted by moriah | Sat Apr 30, 2016, 09:07 AM (0 replies)
An Oklahoma court has stunned local prosecutors with a declaration that state law doesn’t criminalize oral sex with a victim who is completely unconscious.
The ruling, a unanimous decision by the state’s criminal appeals court, is sparking outrage among critics who say the judicial system was engaged in victim-blaming and buying outdated notions about rape.
But legal experts and victims’ advocates said they viewed the ruling as a sign of something larger: the troubling gaps that still exist between the nation’s patchwork of laws and evolving ideas about rape and consent.
The case involved allegations that a 17-year-old boy assaulted a girl, 16, after volunteering to give her a ride home. The two had been drinking in a Tulsa park with a group of friends when it became clear that the girl was badly intoxicated. Witnesses recalled that she had to be carried into the defendant’s car. Another boy, who briefly rode in the car, recalled her coming in and out of consciousness.
Sorry if dupe, but it just hit my FB feed and I'm outaged.
I never actually thought my state, Arkansas, would have better laws regarding sexual assault than others, even Oklahoma. But despite the antiquated term "deviate sexual activity" to refer to oral, anal, or penetration with an object, it's all class Y Rape if the victim was unconscious -- even if the unconscious person consumed the alcohol or drugs willingly.
For our definitions:
(5) "Mentally incapacitated" means that a person is temporarily incapable of appreciating or controlling the person's conduct as a result of the influence of a controlled or intoxicating substance:
(A) Administered to the person without the person's consent; or
(B) That renders the person unaware a sexual act is occurring;
(7) "Physically helpless" means that a person is:
(B) Physically unable to communicate a lack of consent; or
(C) Rendered unaware a sexual act is occurring
Any of the above would have covered what happened in that case.
Oklahoma legislators have some work to do.
Posted by moriah | Fri Apr 29, 2016, 07:21 AM (4 replies)
We all have them, and at least one person on the internet thinks ours stinks.
Still, there are some opinions that, in the interest of trying to take the higher road, might ought better be held until a bathroom.
Posted by moriah | Thu Apr 28, 2016, 12:09 AM (1 replies)
First, a primer for people who aren't familiar with DU's process:
Every election season, at some point, DU goes into "GE Footing". The reason is pretty clearly stated in the TOS:
Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.
The reason why DU must, at some point, enact this policy isn't truly to discourage Democratic participation, but because it's impossible to tell if a poster's criticism of the Nominee or other Democrats running is legitimate concern or GOP baiting. If you've never served on the MIR team, you may be blissfully unaware of just how crazy it gets -- but even outside of election season, DU is such a popular forum that GOP trolls show up all the time.
It's also because even if we may never nominate a perfect candidate, WHOEVER we nominate is better than the alternative. Obama, as great of a job as he did, was not in politics long before his election in 2008. Continuing to harp on that after he was our Nominee wasn't going to help us defeat McCain. We needed to be working on building him up, not tearing him down. He chose a running mate with a great deal of experience in public service, and that's one way we deal with a nominee's less than stellar attributes. No President does it alone. Hillary will, if she does win the Nomination, look for a running mate to overcome her own negatives. I'm not sure who she'd pick and who would say yes, but I have confidence it will be someone both experienced and to her left on several areas. (Would Dennis Kucinich accept? I always liked him.)
Finally, people want to come to DU and see constructive discussion of how to make our party and country better. Primaries, while they are ESSENTIAL to our Party and Democracy because we do need a chance to vote our conscience, and it's the way we show the direction we want the party to go -- can get extremely ugly when we become attached to our candidate. There comes a point when the ugliness is not helping the Party anymore.
But there are also good reasons NOT to rush to a call, (and no, they don't include things I wanted to slap my candidate for saying in 08).
First, we still have states that haven't voted. Even if the math seems terrible, they deserve the chance to vote. Until they get that chance, suppressing their voice on DU too is not going to help with the fact they may rightly feel disenfranchised already because their states are voting so late.
Second, people who are passionate about the Party and their candidate deserve some time to come to terms with what our election gave us. I don't think our process is anything close to perfect, but we can try to learn and make future primaries more Democratic. We need to listen, as a Party, to those in it who have legitimate criticisms of how the process played out this time, and try to make positive changes (alternatives to Saturday voting, just as one example). If we do listen, and do try to work together, it will help people feel less ignored, shunned, left out.... and that's a huge theme I am seeing here among dedicated Bernie supporters.
Third, those dedicated and passionate supporters have obviously demonstrated they do care about the Party enough to actually participate in the Primary process, which speaks to their ability to work with the Party if they are welcomed instead of feeling like they are tossed aside just because their candidate didn't win. I want to see civility and constructive work to get Democrats elected. I want to see that passion help us in the General.
So instead of asking Skinner to "call it" just yet, I propose that those of us who want to have Democratic Underground not suck try to reason instead of attack... sympathize with instead of insult, listen rather than assume...
And try to remember we really are on the same side.
Posted by moriah | Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:25 PM (25 replies)
So, I woke up this morning, took my Lamictal and Prozac, then logged in to Facebook to see that Paul Ryan seems to think people like me are dangerous.
Apparently, we shoot people, not because irresponsible politicians make false, incendiary remarks that cause violent people to do violent things and get praised for them in the press and think they are fighting for a noble cause, but because we are so dangerous that Congress must do something.
There's no doubt our mental health system is broken. Believe me, I know. I give thanks daily that I have my medicine now. It was a long, hard road. But the only person I was dangerous to was myself.
In fact, even if all mental illness were magically cured, gun violence would only decrease by 4%. But since over 60% of gun deaths are suicide, sensible gun registration, waiting periods, and background check requirements would save more lives — people’s lives like mine. I don't think many Republicans like him care much about us, though. If he did, wouldn't he have gotten more of his fellow Republican representatives to vote for the Mental Health Parity And Addiction Equity Act of 2008?
Why is he only saying this now? It's because we always have to believe that evil is “other" — so since this terrorist is white, Christian, and Conservative he must just be “mentally ill".
But we are not “other". We are your friends, coworkers, and loved ones. We are not dangerous. And we will NOT accept the stigma gun advocates continuously place on us, when we're the ones most likely to be killed by guns, not the ones doing the shooting.
Posted in full with permission, links in actual article explain context.
Posted by moriah | Wed Dec 2, 2015, 06:04 PM (15 replies)
Go to Page: 1