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 »


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

Call Me Cassandra: I am no longer worried about Hillary.

After spending way too much time reading up on the CONTENT of the wiki leak emails, I think she is going to be facing a criminal prosecution before the convention.

Bernie needs to stay in the race, and continue to work his bottom off.

I think things are going to get very ugly; Hillary was given rope, and hung herself. Between the issues with Blumenthal copying Top Secret material and how he had access when he was banned as well as the ties with the Clinton Foundation, the evidence is damning. As usual, it is part of her continuing pattern of bad judgment: a completely unnecessary stupid decision.

I think the True Believers will be very upset as they seem 100% convinced of her - I don't even know what to call it. Purity of Spirit? Noble Intent? Something that makes no sense to me. Sigh. Not my problem; I've got my own disillusionment to deal with.

I trust Obama to make sure the right thing gets done. I am grateful I do not have his job.

This isn't really "Bernie vs. Hillary" - it is "Obama vs. Hillary Rnd 2" because he *knows* what is going on behind the scenes, and has to decide if he's going to let it continue.

I don't think he will. As I said, call me Cassandra, but I think he's going to take her down.

You just don't mess with someone who plays Chicago politics.

P.S. I am not going to answer the Hillary folk who respond to this thread and will be putting them on ignore. This is my opinion, based (as I said) on my reading of the evidence. She endangered national security, and if she is deemed above the law...

"This fire needs gas." (Sidney to Hillary, 10/26/2012)



From: Sidney Blumenthal
To: Hillary Clinton
Date: 2012-10-24 22:51

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05797723
Date: 11/30/2015

From: Sidney Blumenthal
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 10:51 AM
To: Subject: Re: H: fyi, Paul Blumenthal. Sid

I am working very closely now with American Bridge. I dictated a script for Cher for an ad on women, will learn whether she agreed to do it; ordered a reel on Republican outrageous comments on women, which is done and will soon be released; number of other things TBD later, whatever I can think of. It's hit and miss. Biden needs to raise his decibel level on Republican rape rage and Romney as supporter, enabler and Profile in Cowardice. To wit: •318934.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/richard-mourdock-abortion_n_2 Will tell Klain and John Martilla (who remains close to Biden).

Can you get all the Democratic women senators to issue a joint statement about the Republican rape rage, women's rights and Romney's enabling and cowardice? This fire needs gas.

Original Message From: H <[email protected] >
To: 'sbwhoeop
Sent: Fri, Oct 26, 2012 10:37 am
Subject: Re: H: fyi, Paul Blumenthal. Sid

Does anybody but us care?

From: Sidney Blumenthal
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2U12 1U:U2 Am Eastern btanaard Time
To: H
Subject: H: fyi, Paul Blumenthal. Sid

http:/ /www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2 oi2/io/ 25/american-crossroads-swift-boat n 2020651.html

The bold is my emphasis. This is one of the MANY email exchanges between the Secretary of State and the guy who Obama BANNED FROM HIS TEAM in 2009. (Source: New York Times, August 16, 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/politics/16emanuel.html?_r=0.) Please note the following email showing the communication about not "outing" this directive being ignored...


From: Cheryl Mills
To: Hillary Clinton
Date: 2009-06-04 07:38

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05761825
Date: 06/30/2015 RELEASE IN FULL

From: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD©state.gov >
Sent Friday, June 05, 2009 11:02 PM
Subject: Fw: Sydney Blumenthal

Fyi From: Crowley, Philip 3
To: Mills, Cheryl D
Sent: Fri Jun 05 19:38:20 2009
Subject: Sydney Blumenthal

FYI, we have heard from an AP reporter that Sydney outed himself about coming to the Department, mentioning it without realizing he was talking to someone who actually covers our building. PJ 34

No one gives "free" advice at these levels. The Clinton Foundation was paying Blumenthal $120k a year and Hillary was listening to him AGAINST OBAMA'S INSTRUCTIONS. One of the most damning is a complete analysis of Libya from April, 2011 that influenced her Libya decision making - https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/10115#efmBESCAL - and turned out to be WRONG.

Email storage bores me and I am a tech person. This isn't an email scandal - the email is what is called a PAPER TRAIL for inappropriate influence peddling.

You see, a former President of the United States (Bill Clinton) was using OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY (donations to his Foundation) to pay people to influence his WIFE'S DECISION MAKING WHILE SHE WAS SECRETARY OF STATE UNDER A DIFFERENT PRESIDENT AND SHE WASN'T DISCLOSING IT TO HER BOSS.

Money and access to the people in power - this is how a former President maintained his influence at the highest levels of government. And now he and his wife are going to be back there. Most members of this board will ignore this because "it's just an email scandal."

No. For the first time in recorded history, you can actually VIEW THE EVIDENCE TRAIL.

Here's a link -- https://search.wikileaks.org/advanced?q=Blumenthal+&exclude_words=&words_title_only=&words_content_only=&publication_type%5B%5D=42&sort=0#results

To be fair, this is stuff the Republicans have been doing for decades -- AND THAT IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.

Pretend for thirty seconds that the guy doing this crap was named George W. Bush Jr. and he was collecting millions of dollars from corporations, then using that money to pay people to push his "sponsors" agenda and subverting all of the rules about lobbyists and disclosure of interests with back door emails.

Do you feel outraged? Well, the power of a name is that former President Bill Clinton and First Lady/Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did it instead, and a significant number of people who should KNOW BETTER want to put the pair of them BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

Am I a Democrat or an Independent? Political Evolution.

I have voted for every Democratic presidential candidate since I was old enough to vote. Yet it wasn't until recently (President Obama) that I became comfortable publicly identifying as a Democrat.

I was an Independent. That meant I voted for the person best qualified for the job, which meant splitting my votes down ticket as I deemed fit. (Believe it or not, there was a time, prior to Bush Junior, when I didn't think all Republicans were horrible people!)

In 1996 I voted a straight party Democratic ticket for the first time in my life. It was a pure, rage induced protest vote based on the fact a Republican congress wanted to (and eventually did) IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR LYING ABOUT HIS NON-MARITAL SEXUAL ACTIVITIES in a blatantly partisan witch hunt led by a bunch of hypocritical moral degenerates. Betrayal of a "best friend" relationship (Linda Trip vs Monica Lewinski) and the fact that apparently Monica didn't swallow when performing oral sex at work/the President ejaculated on a blue dress and we all had to hear about it non-stop for what seemed like FOREVER along with earnest discussion about whether he was just a sex addict or there was something wrong with his wife dominated the public discourse. Concessions were made in regards to important legislation because of his lack of power, and bluntly, the whole situation was a national embarrassment. Political discussions invariably centered around the fact that a President's sex life was private, but the whole thing had started because Bill couldn't keep it in his pants and Hillary was subject to the same level of scrutiny. Why was she still with the lying cheater? Did she secretly approve? She was obvious distraught by the situation. Poor Chelsea! Etc.

Ad naseum.

In the 2000 election, despite significant accomplishments for the country under the Clinton administration, the Vice President distanced himself from his boss while running for the office. The man was incredibly well qualified: smart, experienced, a true statesman. I was proud to vote for him. And we ended up with Bush Junior instead - a man who admitted to being an active alcoholic until only a few years before, whose only significant life achievements involved a string of bankrupt companies that were barely concealed money laundering operations for influence peddling, and being born with a famous father.

I joined DU in 2004 as an independent Kerry supporter. My cynical view of national politics was that Republicans are corrupt, and Democracts are inept. How else to explain the whole "bully Republican versus Democrat wearing a kick-me sign"?

Thank God for Obama in 2008. He was amazing. He was able to handle the "rough and tumble" of politics, and I have not once been embarrassed by him during his entire tenure in office.

Let me repeat that: NOT ONCE.

I now admit to being a proud Democrat. Mitt Romney actually pushed me over the edge. I am comfortable with voicing a preference for the candidate I want my party to offer in the General Election - Bernie Sanders. I would be pleased and honored to vote for and support this man. I already have a sign in my yard and a magnet for my car. He is not a perfect candidate, but I really like him. I am a liberal, progressive Obama loving Democrat.

I am not a Hillary Clinton Democrat. I am embarrassed both by her baggage, her indefensible appearance of personal financial corruption similar to the Bush family, her lack of moral leadership on matters of LGBT rights and the IWR, and the weekly gaffes and missteps that have dogged her entire political life. I do not trust her judgment or her word. I find myself reacting to her with the same visceral negativity as I did Bush Junior: there is just something "not right" about her - she is calculating, but my perception is that it is about HER SURVIVAL AND NOT MINE.

The convention is still a few months away. I have shared my issues and concerns about this presumptive front runner for some time. Currently, it appears the choice is going to be Trump versus Clinton, and the thought makes me consider the benefits of Canadian immigration. Ha ha, right?

I would not be proud to vote for Hillary Clinton. I am not sure I can. I am not big on fear and blackmail - "do it or your daughter loses her reproductive rights" - and the most honest sign I could put up would be "Not Trump!" God help the Democrats if the Republicans find a way to broker their convention to get that boob off their ticket, because if they drop the crazy anti-abortion/anti-gay racist stuff, I'd bolt to them in a heartbeat if my only alternative was Hillary.

Republicans are corrupt. Democrats are incompetent. If she is the nominee, I will return to being an Independent. I guess I am only a team player if I like the captain.

Bernie Supporters: Ignore & Trash - Best. DU. Features. Ever.

At the end of the day, Hillary supporters are NOT YOUR FRIENDS RIGHT NOW.

They believe Hillary Clinton will be the next President.

They do not believe or care about WHY you like Bernie. THEY DO NOT LIKE HIM.

Please do not engage them. Use the "Ignore" feature whenever anyone is insulting to another DUer. Trash threads that offend you.

Let them talk to themselves.

The battle is far from over.

Do not expect decency, kindness, compassion or respect from your enemies.

Today, Hillary supporters are your enemies. That may change after the convention or it may not.

Do not engage with people who do not care about what you value.


I may have broken through to a Trump supporter on Facebook (maybe)

WARNING! This post contains graphic and offensive language.

I debated whether to share this exchange or not, because frankly, I know I will be seeing more than a few "don't sink to their level" replies, filled with self-righteous "we have to be better than they are" commentary, and who wants to deal with that? But I have decided to post it because I think it contains an important technique that may need to be employed with some people.

You see, there are different ways of learning things, and sometimes we all forget that. For people who are naturally empathetic, sympathetic or able to internalize that old trope of "there but for the grace of God go I", it can be hard to understand kindness, courtesy and respect are not the only ways to teach valuable life lessons.

This story begins with a public Facebook post shared by a friend. The post had the following quote: "I love the old days — you know what they used to do (to protesters) like that when they got out of line? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks." - Donald Trump and included an iconic photo of Kent State University.

My friend was sharing this in horror, but the thread was promptly joined by a Trump Supporter (henceforth known as TS) who began spewing "protesters deserve it/Trump is awesome/liberals are stupid" bile. Rather than engage in a fruitless dialogue, I decided to try something new...

ME: TS If you are a Trump supporter, let me tell you "like it is, as I toughen up, America, and am not political correct" that you are a worthless piece of shit and your Nazi loving ass deserves to be tarred and feathered - my grandfather fought in WWII against people who supported your master, and if you think we're going to let your cowardly racist bullshit ruin this country, just watch that scum sucking loser you worship get destroyed exactly like he deserves. I would have tried to be civil, but as a Trump supporter, I know you are incapable of understanding anything like rational, logical thought, and civility/respect are concepts you don't believe in so please do the rest of us a favor and take your worthless self out of the discussion, because losers like you should always just be left out on the side of the road to die after they get tortured. PS Did I hit enough of the Trump talking points to make the point? Probably not. All the men with little hands love Trump, and we all know TS needs to get out of his parents' basement and get a job, but can't. Phew! It isn't easy behaving like an asshole - now we can all be entertained by Big Baby TS whining about how mean the liberals are - wah! Wah! Take your crybaby self somewhere where people give a shit!

TS: Spoken like a true fear mongering race baiter.

ME: And there goes the crying - "liberals are so mean, just because I'm a worthless racist who worships the worst person ever -wah!" Take your tiny little hands and inability to satisfy a sexual partner elsewhere, scum boy. No one fears you - you just disgust us.

TS: No crying. Just Truth.

ME: Truthful people don't like liars, and since Trump seems to be pathological in his lies, we know all there is to know about you - you can't handle truth (like the fact you are a loser) so you want to blame everyone else for your complete lack of success in life. Yeah, we see you for what you are and it is pathetic. Ha ha ha!!!

TS: Sad part is that you really believe your lies. Your fear and hatred blinds you.

ME: TS I am fucking QUOTING TRUMP in every reply I am making to you.

TS: You are taking fragments of quotes and twisting them to your own agenda.

ME: Yes, I am. This used to be a great country, but we're going to make America great again. People like you don't belong in it. Back in the day, people like you were afraid to protest because there were consequences for protesting. And losers - take them out of here! If they get hurt on the way, I'll pay your legal fees. People who give the finger to other people, they deserve to get hit. And if you like this guy, TS, you are a Fucking Loser Asshole.

TS: There is the difference between you and me. I see people as the greatness they are, you see them less than.

ME: Again, TS, I AM QUOTING TRUMP. And the fact you DISAGREE WITH IT WHEN IT IS DIRECTED AT YOU might mean there is hope for you, or it might not. I hope this conversation has enlightened you a little bit on what Trump and his echo chamber looks like to the rest of us because decent people don't talk to others like this, let alone think it is acceptable behavior in leadership or as role models for behavior. Good luck. Ida Out

Channeling my inner Trump was NOT EASY; being that much of an abusive asshole (complete with some lies, because the earlier exchanges were in the "theme of" as opposed to some of the later actual "real" quotes) was work. Frankly, it felt completely AGAINST my own nature, and was both mentally and emotionally exhausting.

But here is the scary part: it seemed to work. By the end of the exchange, my victim was seeing "greatness in people" as opposed to "protesters deserve violence" because he didn't like being on the receiving end of the abuse.

Will it last? Maybe. Maybe not. But what I learned was that sometimes it is necessary to just SHOUT IT DOWN and the best medicine for Trump Supporters is simply his rhetoric returned until they choke on it.

Food for thought. I am still chewing. I assume it goes without saying this technique should be applied judiciously, and one should be cautious about becoming a full time abusive asshole, but when logic fails, keep "Trump quotes" available to bludgeon as needed.

It may feel icky, but if it can save them from the dark side by creating that one moment of "this sucks and I don't like it" maybe it will be worth it in the end.

Feminism At Work Poster (Hillary Group)

Bernie supporter here, but saw this and thought of you/had to share it!



Women You Should Know (womenyoushouldknow) - Feminism At Work

In honor of Women’s History Month, Women You Should Know commissioned award-winning cartoonist, author and illustrator, David Trumble to execute our vision for an original piece of art that would pay tribute to some of history’s most courageous women; fearless females who went out on a limb to speak out, to stand up, and to act in the fight for women’s rights and equality; pioneers who moved women’s history forward and thought leaders who continue to carry that torch. We are so proud to present… Feminism At Work.

Spanning almost 200 years of U.S. history, from the mid-1800s through today, Feminism At Work captures the spirit of the women’s movement by highlighting some of its greatest champions – 12 in total – from different eras. Because they are the hands-on builders who set out to forge a better and more equal path for women everywhere, often putting themselves in precarious and unpopular positions in the process, the composition of the piece evokes the iconic 1932 black and white photograph Lunchtime Atop A Skyscraper, or more informally Men At Work. Believed to have been taken by photographer Charles Ebbets, it features 11 ironworkers eating lunch on a steel beam, dangling 850 feet above New York City’s streets, while on break from constructing the RCA building (now the GE building) in Rockefeller Center.

In contrast, Feminism At Work is intentionally set against a transitioning backdrop – from monochrome to vivid color – of a more modern New York, as it’s very much about the future, about continuing to move forward, expanding on the solid foundation these women have laid for all of us, and for generations of women to come. And there is no “lunch break” when it comes to the women’s movement as there always was and still is much work to be done in the fight for women’s equality.

Of the countless American women we could have included, we worked with women’s historian and political consultant Pam Elam, founder of The Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony Central Park Statue Fund, to narrow it down to a core group of 11 that, like the pieces of a complicated puzzle, each represent a vital part of the whole picture. We rounded out our list to a total of 12 women by including someone we call “Future Woman,” an unidentified individual who represents the new wave of feminists, the collective of young women and girls of the digital age who will continue to lead the charge.

(Snipping a bunch of stuff that is super cool, including descriptions of why they were included - highly recommended reading - but take a look at the list!)

Meet The 12 Women Of Feminism At Work

Margaret Fuller (1810-1850)
Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902) and Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906)
Jane Addams (1860-1935)
Ida B. Wells-Barnett (1862-1931)
Margaret Sanger (1879-1966)
Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962)
Bella Abzug (1920-1998)
Shirley Chisholm (1924-2005)
Gloria Steinem (1934 – )

Hillary Rodham Clinton (1947 – )
“Women’s rights are human rights and human rights are women’s rights.” (from the groundbreaking speech she gave in Beijing in 1995). This is a woman who smashed through one political glass ceiling after another, while being a champion for women’s empowerment, entrepreneurship, and investment in women’s economic potential. In 2001, Hillary Clinton became the only American first lady to hold national office when she was elected to the U.S. Senate. She became the 67th U.S. Secretary of State in 2009, serving until 2013. During that time, she brought the message of equality, justice, and opportunity for women and girls to a global stage, giving it worldwide attention.

Future Woman (right here – right now)

READ MORE AT LINK - The art is lovely.

Happy weekend!

So, we HATE Hillary. Without Bernie, we would support Trump.

We have forsaken our mothers. We will burn in a special place in Hell.

We are liars. We are misogynists. We are ignorant. We are stupid.

Threads expressing these thoughts are currently on the Greatest Page.

Now, let's talk about the the nasty things the Bernie folk say:

Hillary is a LIAR. She is a bought and paid for corporate shill. She is not trusted by the majority of the electorate. The Republicans hate her with a passion that will increase turnout for their side. She made bad decisions while in the Senate. She voted for the Bush invasion of Iraq on flimsy evidence. She pushed for NAFTA. She pushed for welfare reform. She was not a leader in support of LGBT rights, and only jumped on board when others had done the heavy lifting. She is trying to back pedal and negotiate on abortion rights. She waffles on issues like fracking depending on her audience. She is under investigation by the FBI and actually had to be asked how she would respond to a potential criminal indictment. She is cheating and the DNC is not being impartial. She is unelectable. We don't want her as president.

And when it comes to her supporters, the accusations of "delusional" and "willfully blind" mingle with the accusations of cult-like behavior based on her hypnotic stares and curling lips or some such whatever.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, both sides are telling the TRUTH. Bernie supporters HATE Hillary. Republicans ALSO hate Hillary.

Who the HELL do you think is going to vote for her? All of the hell bound misogynistic poopy pants Hillary Haters? According to the admins, it is a four-to-one ratio of Bernie vs. Hillary love on this site, and out in the real world, thus far Trump, Cruz and Rubio have more committed voters than Bernie and Hillary combined.

If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, I am telling you plainly, Hillary's record HAS NOT EARNED THIS RUST BELT RESIDENT'S VOTE, and that is totally separate from my issues with putting Bill back in the White House.

We will be coming off a very successful Obama presidency. Voters like to switch things up and a Trump presidency is possible. I am not convinced EITHER Hillary or Bernie can take that man down in a debate. (Yeah, I said it.) He is a REALITY TELEVISION STAR and more people have watched those heavily edited "he's a smart business guy" fictions with OTHER celebrities than have EVER watched a REAL TIME political debate. They call him ratings gold on television, talk about him nonstop, and that is all free advertising.



STUPID, CORRUPTION LOVING, CULT OF PERSONALITIES ROBOTS please put on a nice victim hat while juries HIDE because


Bernie supporters are usually, but NOT ALWAYS talking about Hillary's PROBLEMS as a candidate who represents the values of the party. Hillary supporters are talking about Bernie supporters. BOTH SIDED ARE BEING RUDE, INSULTING AND OFFENSIVE, and may I point out, we are talking the SUPPORTERS/NOT THE CANDIDATES.

And both sides are causing us to bleed voters because this sausage making festival is the OPPOSITE of INSPIRING and is ONE of the reasons Hillary's candidacy is easily described as DIVISIVE.

I can't even imagine the hell that would be four years of a presidency with her at the helm. I would probably never watch network or cable television again. Sigh.

Okay. I've had my little rant, and scolded everyone. If it was too subtle, here is the message one last time:


I hope the guilty parties feel sufficiently chastised now, while the innocent bystanders are at least amused. But the reality is, I can't control the Internet (and candidly am not interested in doing so) but I can control ME.

I hereby pledge to trash threads and block people who are insulting and rude to fellow Democrats about their candidate preference on BOTH SIDES. That means I am not "recommending" snide, obnoxious threads or kicking them with arguments. Trash & Block.

I am not sure there will be anything left to see, but I am going to try it. Because I actually like some of the people who are doing this, I will reverse this AFTER the convention.

Insulting and Rude to fellow Democrats: Done. Now.

That is all.


Good luck everyone.

Oh, and yes, I recognize the irony of meanly scolding people about being mean. What can I say? I'm complicated.

Thread Title Suggestion/Request

I am not an admin so please note this is a suggestion/request:

Would people mind starting thread titles in our "protected" groups with an easy code so that when good threads hit the greatest page it is easy for non-members to self-edit any response?

For example, a thread in the "Bernie Support Group" or the "Hillary Support Group" might start with

Bern: He's the Best!


Hill: She's the Best!

With the codes (hopefully obviously) being just "Bern:" and "Hill:" so thread titles aren't too cut off. I thought about initials, but unfortunately "BS" has a negation connotation in modern English. (Insert ignorable joke here)

I think it would be nice if each group picked their own preferences, so the above are just suggestions.

I believe that members in each of the various groups deserve for their "safe place" to be safe, and I want to respect that HOWEVER we have some really interesting posts which would beg for lively discussion (how is that for a euphemism?) if they were in GDP but aren't intended for that which are hitting the greatest page with regularity from all sides which I sometimes start to respond to -- and then realize I am not the intended audience.

I think it would also cut down on the "accidentally banned" hurt feeling issues, too. And, although I am specifically mentioning the two candidates, there are some other groups which might benefit from this, too - and yes, I am looking at you, Cooking Group! (You know I love you, right?)

Thoughts? Is there a better solution which doesn't assume always noticing the group (which doesn't show up on my phone while on the greatest page)? I want to be respectful (and not waste my time on the wrong forum because of a catchy thread title on the Greatest or Front page).

Again, I blame the people who post for this little conundrum - STOP BEING SO INTERESTING!!!

Things I Care About/Things I Don't with Hillary

Caveat: Bernie Supporter & Anti-Immediate Family of Presidents Running for the Same Job

Transcripts: Seriously, I don't care what's in them. Big Don't Care. What I do have a concern about is that the recipients of the speeches considered the exchanges more of an investment in relationship and actual influence in future legislation which may be inappropriate or not in the best interests of the rest of us.

Email: "Private server" and "classified emails" are also in the Don't Care category. I get tons of spam and irritated when I have Internet connection issues, so if that was deemed the best way to get stuff done, I'm good. As for the classified issues, open transparent government is kind of where I like things, so big "who cares?" My only real concern here (which has been alleviated) is that these emails are the property of the government for record keeping purposes, so I'm good and this is a non-issue.

Job Performance while Secretary of State: Not a deal breaker for me. If her boss (Obama) was happy, so am I. Did she hold different positions than he did in some areas? Uh, yes. I expect that she persuaded him to see things her way sometimes, and fell in line with his orders on others. Nature of holding down a job.

Mud Slinging: I am mostly okay with this, even the surrogate stuff, because I think it is important to see how Bernie handles it, and thus far I have been pleased. It is (to me) one of the unpleasant vetting things that need to happen - how do candidates handle it when their positions are misrepresented or their character is maligned? In this day and age, it is GOING to happen, so I want to see how it is handled BEFORE it is being done by Faux News or a world leader with a different agenda. To be candid, in Hillary's 25+ years in public life, she has done an excellent job of keeping her cool while being personally attacked on a regular basis. It's the nature of politics, so mostly I roll my eyes.

Lying: BIG DEAL. As noted, I am charitable about "didn't agree, but did it anyway" on issues while she was answering to a "boss" and I also think unintended consequences on what-seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time don't count as lying, BUT attempting to mislead or spin depending on the audience just drives me crazy. There are issues where nuances matter, but this seems to be more pandering. I can't tell if some of it is people pleasing ("say what they want to hear" or just contempt for other people's ability to understand what she is trying to say/do. Fracking is a perfect example - yes or no?

Lawyer Think: VERY BIG DEAL. I had originally included this in the "lying" category, but decided it was important enough to separate out because this really bugs me. Hillary has LAWYER mentality - she agrees with whoever her client is. Okay, that makes sense for lawyers (and I know that is part of their training - to advocate for their clients based on LAW and be able to switch sides at will) but that comes across as DISHONEST when I want to know HER OPINION. The real, true answer on fracking: she was okay with it, but that was because she was hyper focused on solving a different problem at the time (money for a local municipality) and wasn't thinking of the "big picture" of unintended consequences (like water in flames and polluted aquifers). Her value systems are flexible in ways I don't like - I want "come hell or high water, the answer is NO" on important things instead of "it depends" which comes across as her being a lawyer instead of a leader.

She's Not a Boy: Don't Care. She's smart and she's been working with powerful people for decades. She can play with them just fine. I don't like it when she starts going all war-crazy because she feels like she has to prove she's tough. She's a grandma, for goodness sake, and if she's a good one (which I expect she is because she was/is a good mom to her daughter Chelsea), there is NO ONE tougher than a Grandma looking out for her Grandbabies. Strong women have been taking care of business forever, and men have been scolding that "they don't do it right" forever. Vocal intonation, pant suit, hair style - none of that matters. She's smart, but as my mom always said, "it isn't how smart you are that counts, it's what you do with it that matters." Women are more traditionally "team builders"; I am not sure that is how I see her. Oddly enough, she always seems more "smart girl in the corner reading a book" to me. (Or maybe I am just seeing myself in her - lol!)

Her Plans to Fix Things: Big Problems here, because we are back to "lawyer think" and based on who she has been hanging out with for the last three decades, I don't think she understands the problems of "non-management" people, specifically Executive Level Types. I just don't see her as "big picture" start-to-finish problem solver. NAFTA has done a lot of good in Mexico, but the trade-off has been devastating to middle class America. That is an easy example - and with a manufacturing model that is simply not long term sustainable (remember, my personal background is heavy automotive), the idea of punishing companies for "moving jobs" versus declaring bankruptcy is simply ignorant because it ignores the problems with the entire business model. That is just one example, but it tells me she doesn't know where to look for innovative ideas. I mean no disrespect, but after being a big part of destroying the middle class, I don't see her being able to fix it especially because she doesn't seem to understand how it happened.

I think typing this out really helped me get some focus (outside of my "fear of corruption because of cronyism" on my real discomfort with Hillary.

She's a lawyer at heart. I expect my leaders to LEAD - "we're going to the moon, and that means science people will have to solve a whole bunch of impossible things - get to work!" At a certain level, a true leader has to be a MOTIVATED DREAMER who is willing to nag, push and cajole everyone else into making their dream come true. "I want to be President" isn't enough of a dream for the rest of us to support.

"I want civil rights for everyone."

"I want world peace."

"I want to wipe out hunger and disease."

"I want every child in America to have a great education."

"I want to go to the moon and beyond."

I think Hillary is more "administration" than leader and dreamer. I think she compartmentalizes beautifully, but doesn't do "big picture" with the people as part of the puzzle. It isn't a personal failing; it is just the way life is, and while I respect her accomplishments, at the end of the day, I am still a Bernie supporter.

MI Voter Here. Bernie supporter. (Personal Perspective)

I even put a Bernie sign in my yard and bought a car magnet.

From a personal perspective, my Facebook feed has been filled today with friends proudly proclaiming they voted at a level that has just been stunning. We *all* seem to have turned out, regardless of party affiliation and candidate preference. Everyone has been cajoling, nagging and bragging about voting - we all seemed to take this VERY SERIOUSLY on both sides of the spectrum.

Issues with the pols - we have no landlines. EVERYONE is using cells, to the point where I only know three people out of everyone (friends and family numbers are ridiculously large) who actually have landlines anymore and they generally speaking use caller ID/don't answer numbers they don't recognize because of the blasted telemarketers. This is just life across all age demographics - the older people keep their cells on them in case of emergency, and nearly everyone texts (younger folk with more regularity).

Speaking of cell phones, I received a personal text reminder from a Bernie supporter in Idaho a few days ago complete with info about my polling place, then another one this morning. TEXTS - not phone calls. Not sure what other campaigns are doing to keep up with technology, but since everyone uses text, and annoying people can be easily blocked, it was a very efficient "get out the vote" strategy.

Hillary supporters are outnumbered three to one in my circle with Bernie supporters. Only a handful like Trump, and the sane Republicans will happily take anyone who is Not Trump (they want either Rubio or Cruz to drop out so the other one can "take Trump out".

I have made my living in technology for three decades, and two of them were automotive centric (my resume includes all thre of the big guys). My husband has spent the majority of his career in automotive world, as have my two brothers, and of course my dad was auto his entire career/my mom worked the auto lines part time when I was growing up, so the industry has really put the roof over my head/food in my stomach for most of my life. We all knew the bullshit line Hillary was feeding about the bailout (my husband was laid off briefly for the first time in his career when GM declared bankruptcy, and I was doing work for a Tier One supplier at the time) and that level of dishonesty about something we are still smarting from did NOT go over well, especially when "can't trust a word the woman says" is already an issue. (That isn't meant sexist - it is meant as a descriptive.)

The more people were told how inevitable Hillary was, the angrier people were getting. I won't say I expected Bernie to win tonight, but I was hoping. The Hillary supporters I know weren't excited about her - they were more "there is no other choice so just accept it already" along with "we think she is qualified" (of course). I know multiple people who voted for Bernie who would support Hillary in the general, if she was the candidate, and about an equal number who won't. There isn't any middle ground - people seem to either love or hate her.

Not sure if this information helps in the next few states, but that is what I see from my vantage point.

Fellow Michigan voters, please add your own thoughts?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »