HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » IdaBriggs » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »

IdaBriggs

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: South East Michigan
Home country: United States
Member since: Tue Jul 27, 2004, 01:19 PM
Number of posts: 10,559

Journal Archives

"Killing people" is NOT "good foreign policy experience"

I keep reading that Hillary is supposed to have "good foreign policy experience" which apparently does not mean the same thing here on Planet Earth as it does in Hillary World.

Here among the decent people of the "let's do our best to AVOID KILLING PEOPLE" (which is not the same as pacifist), it looks like the best words to describe her work experience are "abject failure" and "war criminal". (Yes, according to the United Nations, "unsanctioned regime change" is one of those pesky war crime things - and if you want to even start explaining how and why it won't be prosecuted, understand you have already lost the argument.)

From her INFAMOUS "gullible" decision to support the Iraq War -- no threat to our country, no weapons of mass destruction, an educated population with religious freedom but an asshole King/fake "President" and TONS OF OIL that made the Cheney coalition even richer -- to the Hondorus coup to let's not even get started on the disaster she helped create in Libya --

This woman is HORRIBLE at keeping civilian populations of the world SAFE and that means she can't keep Americans safe.

Yeah, I said it. When my neighbor's house is burning down, fire spreads. Normalize violent death and maiming of children and the horrors of war, and it always comes home.

And let's not even start with the hypocrisy of her touring with victim families of gun death when she sold arms to repressive regimes that we'd never sold to before because they are Bad People.

Hillary's name is an asterisk in the decisions that have killed uncounted innocents and created refugee crisis situations in more countries than I can count.

You call that experience? You think she's suddenly going to develop good judgment?

I don't do drugs - and let's not even talk about her support for the "drug war" and the disasterous result for pretty much every family in America - so I'm not buying it.

America CANNOT afford this woman in the White House. Neither can the world. She needs to use her "money and power and influence" to start HELPING PEOPLE.

Scratch that - one look at Haiti says the "Clinton Foundation" screws that up, too.

Maybe golf instead. Yeah, that's the ticket. Golf. Not MORE Gulf War.

Can political pundits come with a "called it right" meter?

If someone is waxing eloquent about their ability to predict the future in politics, economics or even sports, I want to see a "batting average" so I know how seriously to take them.

I have heard rumors of "trusted news anchors" but I think they are a myth, and the most useful political commentary I have ever seen in my life was Jon Stewart on "Crossfire" asking them to "please stop - you're hurting America!"

Sigh. I want a batting average for them. Please?

Any chance a nice Hillary supporter could date stamp some of her

policy positions for us?

I'm losing track of the spin.

Big ones for me include Abortion - I thought she was pro-choice, but now I understand she is open to negotiating on a constitutional amendment about it, but only in the third trimester and if the Republican base thinks that's a a good idea, right?

What about LGBT rights - wasn't she pretty firm about New York NOT recognizing gay marriages? When or did that change?

National security hacking issues are big in the news, of course - if I get this right, it was okay for her to conduct state department business using her personal unsecured email, but then she told the rest of the state department they couldn't do that, but she still did, so what is her CURRENT policy about how she would want HER state department to handle it? Are we talking no big deal in the future?

As for black children in tough neighborhoods - are they super predators or the future of the country? If they have drug issues, do they need jail or rehab? If they are unarmed and shot by police, whose fault is it?

Does she still believe in a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy out to get her or was that a paranoid delusion? If she still "believes" in it, what are her plans for dealing with them? Will she involve any government agencies like she did before? FBI and IRS were the two we heard about - will she now involve Homeland Security?

Last but not least, what is her stance on lying and misleading the public? Should it be a prosecutable offense if it involves national security? For example, a recent president sold a bill of goods about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq and a lot of people died as a result. How does she want that situation handled? Are we talking criminal prosecution or dinner party?

I realize that Hillary has "evolved" on her stance on most of these issues, so time-and-date stamps would really help. And any insight into what influences her evolution would also be appreciated - she's such a lawyer, it keeps looking like its her paying clients that have the most impact on those decisions instead of her strong moral and ethical values.

Thanks in advance!

Obama: "...nobody is above the law."

Headline from article is different but I think the fact he is repeating something from the third grade civics book (seriously, my kids had to "fill in the blank" about "everyone is equal in the eyes of the law" is something very important for ALL OF US to remember.

There is a perception in this country, based on data and real world experience, that white people with money are frequently seen as being above the law.

Obama: Clinton Didn't "Intentionally" Put America In Jeopardy; I Guarantee No Political Influence In Server Probe, Real Clear Politics, April 10, 2016 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/10/obama_clinton_didnt_intentionally_put_america_in_jeopardy_i_guarantee_no_political_influence_in_server_probe.html

Chris Wallace grilled Obama to guarantee the decision made by the Justice Department will be made on legal grounds and not political grounds.

"Some people, I think, are worried whether or not the decision whether or not how to handle the was will be made on political grounds and not legal grounds. Can you guarantee to the American people? Can you direct the Justice Department to say, Hillary Clinton will be treated as the evidence goes, she'll not be in any way protected?"

"I can guarantee," Obama promised. "I can guarantee that not because I give Attorney General [Loretta] Lynch a directive, that is institutionally how we have always operated. I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line and always have maintained it."

"I guarantee it. I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI, not just in this case but in any case. Period," Obama made clear.

"Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department because nobody is above the law," the president added.


I think President Obama is handling this well. In another part of the interview, it is discussed she was "careless" and acknowledges her own error. He reassures the country that her careless behavior has not damaged our national security. He is also very carefully drawing the line about supporting his former Secretary of State while also saying he doesn't know what has been found yet.

He is affirming his faith and and asking us to as well in the FBI and Justice Department.

I am going to trust them. Whatever they end up reporting, I will respect. If they say it isn't a criminal matter - just "careless" - I will believe them.

All Hail the Dark Lord of Blueberry Pancakes!!!

In a powerful and insightful Internet poll conducted with scrupulous integrity, THIRTY-ONE members of this site have spoken for EVERYONE by voting (except for the two who passed) and the results were VERY CLEAR --

NOT ONE PERSON ON THIS FORUM HAS CHANGED WHO THEY ARE SUPPORTING IN THE LAST WEEK. ZIP. ZERO. NADA. ALL OF YOUR TYPING HAS HAD ZERO IMPACT ON YOUR OPPOSITION.

Bluntly, as the vast majority of participants - 48% (15 people!) clearly indicated -

Never changing my mind! All hail the dark lord of blueberry pancakes!

If you are confused about the pancake thing, it was CLEARLY explained in the original post:

Have we hit the point in the process where either candidate could suck blood from a puppy, a kitten and a baby bunny on stage while chanting an incantation to the almighty dark lord of the blueberry pancake, and we would STILL support them?


Final Answer: Yes. ZERO PEOPLE picked the Yes, the light has dawned! How could I have been so blind? option. ZERO.

In other news, 19% (6) of respondents think everyone else here is crazy and are only here for SalmonChantedEvenings Sunday Lolcats, while 16% (5) thought they had more clever options (but only two even tried).

The conclusions are obvious: we must all pledge our allegiance to the only viable candidate who can rally this nation away from the other candidates, and embrace the syrupy goodness that comes with a fresh batch of blueberry pancakes made with real berries and not any GMO freeze dried and dyed raisins or something else gross and where was I going with this again?

Oh, right!

All Hail the True Savior of the Democratic Party - the Dark Lord of Blueberry Pancakes!

Original Poll Post (closed): http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511672531

Has ANYONE changed who they support since Sanders won Wisconsin?

Hill-Bots, are you still supporting Hillary? Bernie-Bots, are you still supporting Bernie?

I'll-Vote-Dem-No-Matter-Who-Bots, are you still supporting whoever finally gets the nomination? (And yes, Hill-and-Bernie-Bots can be in this category, too.)

Have we hit the point in the process where either candidate could suck blood from a puppy, a kitten and a baby bunny on stage while chanting an incantation to the almighty dark lord of the blueberry pancake, and we would STILL support them?

I'm curious - Vote!

Political Courage & Sandy Hook Victims: Bernie instead of the NRA?

I have 9-year old boy/girl twins. They are in 3rd grade now. They are the same age as the children of Sandy Hook would have been had they not been killed in a kindergarten classroom.

I cannot believe the lack of moral and political courage it takes for a politician running for the highest office in the land to attack an opponent instead of the NRA when it comes to those deaths.

I am okay with Hillary lying about Bernie.

There are two reasons -

1) It lets us see how he deals with crazy people. Realistically, the Republicans will be acting the same way in a few months, so I want to see how Bernie handles it. He spent years in the House of Representatives dealing with ego maniacs pushing their own agenda, so I am confident he will be okay.

And

2) The Truth always comes out, so Hillary is just reinforcing her reputation as untrustworthy. She wants to sling mud? She's going to get her hands dirty. Smears and lies discredit HER because nowadays none of us are waiting for the media to investigate - we Google it.

The bottom line is that Hillary doesn't know how to campaign using modern social media. If she would have stuck to her vision of what she wanted for this country, she may have stood a chance, but instead, she made it about her not us and that just isn't going to work.

So, let it fly, Hillary. Scorch the Earth, and Feel the BERN!!!

So, I almost became a Republican today!

I have signed up to work on Election Day with my local township. The sign asked for people with computer skills (30+ years in IT - woo hoo!) and then my chat with one of the three people in charge had me hired on the spot. I did divulge my 2004 NH efforts, and we had a nice talk about the Arizona situation.

Anyway, it turns out my area is heavy for Democrats, and he really, Really, REALLY wanted me to be a Republican because they need one member from each side in case of an issue to make sure things are handled with appropriate integrity. Part of me wanted to make him happy because I get the problem, but I just couldn't do it. I gently told him I regularly post on a discussion board called "Democratic Underground" and I didn't want my party affiliation "changing for November" to cause any questions ever or cause any voter to feel as if their vote was not treated with the utmost respect.

He was gracious and totally understood and I'm still a Democratic who will hopefully be helping out in November (and an August primary, too),

Whee!

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »