I f*cking love Irish People (FG Facebook)

Dr. Baltar

Just got linked to the Fine Gael Facebook Page here where hundreds of Irish people straight and gay are attacking the party about their stance on SSM and are having their comments deleted only to ask again. It's chaos in there.

SamSamSammy

do you love them because they're stupid? complain about fine gael then vote them into government LOL

Donnaghm

Again, as an FG voter and activist, I'm really pissed off about this. But the economy is my first priority. We'll have to put up with Civil Partnership only for 5 years. Irish society is changing so much, I've no doubt Gay Marriage would pass in a referendum no problem by that stage.

liah

Donnaghm wrote: »

Again, as an FG voter and activist, I'm really pissed off about this. But the economy is my first priority. We'll have to put up with Civil Partnership only for 5 years. Irish society is changing so much, I've no doubt Gay Marriage would pass in a referendum no problem by that stage.

On what planet is the economy more important than human rights issues?

Annasopra

liah wrote: »

On what planet is the economy more important than human rights issues?

The Fine Gael planet - They are conservatives after all

Monty Burnz

liah wrote: »

On what planet is the economy more important than human rights issues?

Nobody will die because they have to put up with civil partnerships instead of marriage. People WILL die because they can't get a job because the economy is screwed or because they can't get the treatment they need.

On what planet is a piece of paper more important than human life?


*I also support SSM

Donnaghm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Nobody will die because they have to put up with civil partnerships instead of marriage. People WILL die because they can't get a job because the economy is screwed or because they can't get the treatment they need.

On what planet is a piece of paper more important than human life?


*I also support SSM

Well said Monty, equality for LGBT people is inevitable in the near future, Economic recovery on the other hand is far far from certain.

Donnaghm

Johnnymcg wrote: »

The Fine Gael planet - They are conservatives after all

Economicaly conservative anyway, by that I mean scraping the Croke Park deal, balancing the budget by 2014-15, keeping taxes down, making the public service more efficient, stop the endless waste!

Labour are too dependent on Unions and Union members to carry out the about necessities for national survival.

Naturally, I'm quite socially Liberal but those issues do not take priority for me at this time.

Apogee

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Nobody will die because they have to put up with civil partnerships instead of marriage. People WILL die because they can't get a job because the economy is screwed or because they can't get the treatment they need.

On what planet is a piece of paper more important than human life?

It's a matter of priorities, is it?

So while the children of same-sex couples, including those in civil partnerships, remain in legal limbo, Fine Gael somehow has time to legislate for the return of stag hunting.

Aard

Censorship ... content tax ... FG really don't like the internets huh?

Monty Burnz

Apogee wrote: »

So while the children of same-sex couples, including those in civil partnerships, remain in legal limbo, Fine Gael somehow has time to legislate for the return of stag hunting.

They haven't legislated for anything yet. I support SSM and I will be raising it with any FG politician I speak to, but they are not going to do anything about it unless a) they know people feel strongly about it and b) they know they will alienate fewer people by introducing it than they will by ignoring it.

The point I'm trying to make is that 10 years ago, or 5, this could have been an election issue and a priority, but with 450,000 on the dole and the country on the point of collapse, other things will predominate.

bodice ripper

Donnaghm wrote: »

Well said Monty, equality for LGBT people is inevitable in the near future, Economic recovery on the other hand is far far from certain.

And if the two were connected you might actually have a point

if your tribal council has nailed their colors to the mast on an issue that might cost them votes, rather than asking the people who will suffer to keep it down, maybe you should take it up with your party...

ninty9er

Monty Burnz wrote: »

People WILL die because they can't get a job because the economy is screwed or because they can't get the treatment they need[/SIZE]

Slippery slope argument. People die in hospitals in the best health systems in the world. Ireland is where it is because most people were too concerned with the economy and being consumers and not enough about society.

Look at Japan. Lesson learned there.

Annasopra

Apogee wrote: »

It's a matter of priorities, is it?

So while the children of same-sex couples, including those in civil partnerships, remain in legal limbo, Fine Gael somehow has time to legislate for the return of stag hunting.

Coeurdepirate

Donnaghm wrote: »

Again, as an FG voter and activist, I'm really pissed off about this. But the economy is my first priority. We'll have to put up with Civil Partnership only for 5 years. Irish society is changing so much, I've no doubt Gay Marriage would pass in a referendum no problem by that stage.

liah wrote: »

On what planet is the economy more important than human rights issues?

I'd also like to argue that human rights issues would be more important, near-equality isn't equality

TylerIE

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Nobody will die because they have to put up with civil partnerships instead of marriage. People WILL die because they can't get a job because the economy is screwed or because they can't get the treatment they need.

On what planet is a piece of paper more important than human life?


*I also support SSM

Your post infuriates me!

ITs not just a piece of paper. ITs passive Legitimate governmental discrimination. Its saying to a sizeable minority of people "flip you, ya can wait".

If we get rid of the legal discrimination we might start seeing young people and teenagers who genuinely find it ok to be gay. There has been some positive changes but nowhere near enough.

I personally know two families of boys in their teens who died by suicide in the last year. One of my politicians (when I rang him about the issue of SSM) mentioned another less than 25km away. And you say a piece of paper doesnt save lives?

The big issue for a lot of my "Straight" (but gay really) friends is that being gay currently = no wife, 2.1 kids, big house with a dog. Therefore they have the girlfriend and live with it - with them being unhappy and the gf falling in love with their nice bf, but knowing that there is just something not right. Perhaps that piece of paper would allow the husband, 2.1 kids, big house and a dog.

Its not going to stop the government dealing with the economy if they allow SSM. Indeed much of the american research suggests it could be good for the economy.

anotherlostie

A comment by an individual FG politician on the issue would not influence my voting decision on Friday. I too am in the camp that there are far more important issues at stake than gay marriage.

And I love how Labour followers are jumping on this bandwagon when Eamonn Gilmore highlighted the importance of this election at the start of the debate tonight in terms of how it will shape our economic future.

TylerIE

Donnaghm wrote: »

Well said Monty, equality for LGBT people is inevitable in the near future, Economic recovery on the other hand is far far from certain.

Ah shur here we have our priorities wrong in every developing country in the world. Let the locals be, who cares if they live in poor conditions and children are abused and have no schools.

The most important thing is to get the economies sorted out! Shur children in the future will get their rights!

And we all know that if we changed it to Discrimination on the grounds of race... or gender... what the case would be - I darent even substitute the word gay in gay rights for [X ethnic origin] rights...

Darton

Please Ireland don't vote enda in he is not the man to lead us out of this
Mess he is not a leader we need REAL change

Monty Burnz

lst wrote: »

Ah shur here we have our priorities wrong in every developing country in the world. Let the locals be, who cares if they live in poor conditions and children are abused and have no schools.

The most important thing is to get the economies sorted out! Shur children in the future will get their rights!

And we all know that if we changed it to Discrimination on the grounds of race... or gender... what the case would be - I darent even substitute the word gay in gay rights for [X ethnic origin] rights...

I think that you will find that - empirically - economic development precedes social development. The wealthiest countries have typically been the most socially advanced. Education seems to play a rather important role in broadening minds.

To be honest though, I've no idea what your point is.

deirdre_dub

Donnaghm wrote: »

Well said Monty, equality for LGBT people is inevitable in the near future, Economic recovery on the other hand is far far from certain.

Do you believe that the rights that LGBT people have gained over the past few decades cannot be reversed?

There is a definite danger that a conservative government that puts the economy / the church / popular opinion / homophobia / transphobia before human rights could end up reversing the rights that have been gained.

The economy is a human rights issue. Education, health care, law and order, justice - all these are human rights issues. Pretty much everything important that a government does is a human rights issue. Any government that doesn't have a good attitude towards human rights scares me.

FG scares me. FF scares me.

Annasopra

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think that you will find that - empirically - economic development precedes social development. The wealthiest countries have typically been the most socially advanced.

Really? where is this empiric evidence?

Monty Burnz

lst wrote: »

Your post infuriates me!

I'm sorry to hear that.

lst wrote: »

ITs not just a piece of paper. ITs passive Legitimate governmental discrimination. Its saying to a sizeable minority of people "flip you, ya can wait".

I appreciate that it's not just a piece of paper - it's just that we seem to be reducing complex arguments to cartoonishly simple ones so I was just joining in the fun.

lst wrote: »

If we get rid of the legal discrimination we might start seeing young people and teenagers who genuinely find it ok to be gay. There has been some positive changes but nowhere near enough.

I'm not LGBT myself, and everyone's experiences will be different, but I'm not sure that the existence of same sex marriage would make a huge difference to teenagers who are LGBT. I would imagine that an accepting society and the support of family and friends would be a greater concern.

lst wrote: »

I personally know two families of boys in their teens who died by suicide in the last year. One of my politicians (when I rang him about the issue) mentioned a third less than 25km away. And you say a piece of paper doesnt save lives?

These boys died because there is no SSM? Were they even gay? Please. This discussion is a bit distasteful - almost like keeping scores - but I think that anyone who stops to think about it will realise that more people will die because of economic hardship than due the existence of civil partnerships rather than SSM.

lst wrote: »

The big issue for a lot of my "Straight" (but gay really) friends is that being gay currently = no wife, 2.1 kids, big house with a dog. Therefore they have the girlfriend and live with it - with them being unhappy and the gf falling in love with their nice bf, but knowing that there is just something not right. Perhaps that piece of paper would allow the husband, 2.1 kids, big house and a dog.

So there is a large cohort of gay men out there who are marrying women rather than men because they are more concerned with having a marriage license than the gender of their spouse

lst wrote: »

Its not going to stop the government dealing with the economy if they allow SSM. Indeed much of the american research suggests it could be good for the economy.

I agree with this point. As I said earlier, it is up to those of us who think that SSM is a good thing to change their policies. They won't do it if they are not asked to.

Apogee

Monty Burnz wrote: »

They haven't legislated for anything yet. I support SSM and I will be raising it with any FG politician I speak to, but they are not going to do anything about it unless a) they know people feel strongly about it and b) they know they will alienate fewer people by introducing it than they will by ignoring it.

The point I'm trying to make is that 10 years ago, or 5, this could have been an election issue and a priority, but with 450,000 on the dole and the country on the point of collapse, other things will predominate.

Stag hunting is in the FG manifesto. Provision for the children of same-sex couples isn't. So people can draw their own conclusions as to which things "will predominate" according to FG.

Monty Burnz

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Really? where is this empiric evidence?

You name 30 poverty-stricken countries with advanced social attitudes (including LGBT rights) and I'll name 30 rich ones with advanced social attitudes. Will that do you as empirical evidence?

Chuchoter

You know, in spite of my normal support of FG, this has changed my mind, and it seems to be the consensus among most FG TDs. It disappoints me that if you want basic equality, you are backed into a corner where there is only one viable party and to be honest, if FG are this dead set against gay marriage, I fear for what they will do to other LGBT issues.

TylerIE

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think that you will find that - empirically - economic development precedes social development. The wealthiest countries have typically been the most socially advanced. Education seems to play a rather important role in broadening minds.

To be honest though, I've no idea what your point is.

My point - probably not as clear as it should have been - is that where do we stop if we say forget human rights and focus on the economy.

I agree fully with your point on economic development coming first. ( Geoffrey Sachs (the End of Poverty) did that for me.

However in this case sorting the economy and SSM are not mutually exclusive. And its not altogether as unimportant as many of ye are making out. The damage has been done as regards governmental discrimination for many of my generation, the longer SSM is delayed the more injustice is being done. The damage has not been done to my generation with regard to the economy (and I say that with two of my closest friends having literally just landed in Sydney today, and a third friend currently in the air on the way there)

Its something that is being ignored because its something that will lose as many votes for a party as it would gain. The parties know (and the two of my local candidates who I got speaking to at length, both said) that its an issue that would lose them the conservative mass going vote - and that for the few votes it would gain it wouldnt be worth it - the old biddies are the reliable voters, particularly when many of them were FF and will now either be looking for a new party - or need all the convincing they can get to stay!

Annasopra

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You name 30 poverty-stricken countries with advanced social attitudes (including LGBT rights) and I'll name 30 rich ones with advanced social attitudes. Will that do you as empirical evidence?

not particularly - you mentioned something vague and then threw in empirically just to make it sound as if you had a point

Monty Burnz

Apogee wrote: »

Stag hunting is in the FG manifesto. Provision for the children of same-sex couples isn't. So people can draw their own conclusions as to which things "will predominate" according to FG.

This isn't rocket science...the bulk of the population doesn't care about it, they are more worried about putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads. It is up to those who do care to get the changes made.

Stag-hunting and any other stuff in their manifesto is a complete red herring in this discussion.

Chuchoter

Is it a red herring? Is equality that low on the FG agenda that stag hunting gets a mention instead of it?

Monty Burnz

Johnnymcg wrote: »

not particularly - you mentioned something vague and then threw in empirically just to make it sound as if you had a point

So you think there is no connection between economic and social development? If I wasn't so tired I'd dig up some papers, but at present I'll just ask you to make a positive argument instead of just rubbishing mine.

Why do you think there is no relationship between social and economic development, and can you provide evidence for your position?

Apogee

Monty Burnz wrote: »

This isn't rocket science...the bulk of the population doesn't care about it, they are more worried about putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads. It is up to those who do care to get the changes made.

Do the bulk of the population think that killing stags is more important than providing legal protection for the children of same-sex couples?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Stag-hunting and any other stuff in their manifesto is a complete red herring in this discussion.

Just because you say it's a red herring doesn't make it so. A number of Fine Gael TDs and Senator stood up on their hind legs in the Dáil and Seanad and berated the outgoing Government for the lack of provision for children in the CP bill. And what do FG propose to do to rectify that matter? Nothing.

Yet they make a manifesto promise to find time to repeal the stag hunting legislation.

Monty Burnz

crayolastereo wrote: »

Is it a red herring? Is equality that low on the FG agenda that stag hunting gets a mention instead of it?

Why don't you ask them?? Presumably the stag hunting thing came up at some point in the past and FG said that they would legalise it again because some people who were in favour of it lobbied for them to change the law.

There's no point cribbing about SSM to me on a chat forum - lobby the guys who will have their hands on the levers of power and ask them to change the law. Make it an issue!

Jeez, the Celtic Tiger generation....'can't somebody else do it?'

Apogee

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There's no point cribbing about SSM to me on a chat forum - lobby the guys who will have their hands on the levers of power and ask them to change the law. Make it an issue!

And vote for a party other than FG or FF.

Monty Burnz

Apogee wrote: »

Do the bulk of the population think that killing stags is more important than providing legal protection for the children of same-sex couples?

I've no idea. It might be a dead heat in the not caring stakes - how the hell would I know?

Apogee wrote: »

Just because you say it's a red herring doesn't make it so. A number of Fine Gael TDs and Senator stood up on their hind legs in the Dáil and Seanad and berated the outgoing Government for the lack of provision for children in the CP bill. And what do FG propose to do to rectify that matter? Nothing.

And what do you propose to do about that? Nothing.

Apogee wrote: »

Yet they make a manifesto promise to find time to repeal the stag hunting legislation.

See my reply above...

TylerIE

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear that.

I appreciate that it's not just a piece of paper - it's just that we seem to be reducing complex arguments to cartoonishly simple ones so I was just joining in the fun.

Its not fun for those of us who cant get the piece of paper, but I get your meaning

I'm not LGBT myself, and everyone's experiences will be different, but I'm not sure that the existence of same sex marriage would make a huge difference to teenagers who are LGBT. I would imagine that an accepting society and the support of family and friends would be a greater concern.

A large part of helping to ensure society is accepting for future generations is that the government accepts it. If SSM is there then its something that young people can grow up as seeing as being normal, ok, and that being gay is not the joke of the pub or just a topic that your dad gets angry when he sees "queers" on the tv....

These boys died because there is no SSM? Were they even gay? Please. This discussion is a bit distasteful - almost like keeping scores - but I think that anyone who stops to think about it will realise that more people will die because of economic hardship than due the existence of civil partnerships rather than SSM.

These boys died because they had huge issues about their sexuality. Potential family and social discrimination, and GUARANTEED societal discrimination certainly played into it. A future where a young gay guy or girl growing up knows that no matter what happens with their family or friends, they can still meet a partner and live a happy healthy life together with state protection will HELP (probably not eliminate) the issues many gay teens have.

So there is a large cohort of gay men out there who are marrying women rather than men because they are more concerned with having a marriage license than the gender of their spouse

There are a cohort of gay men - and it annoys me too - who feel that the gay scene / being gay is all about sleeping around and one nights stands. They are faced with the choice of that or, if they would like a relatively nice life, having a gf.

Monty Burnz

Apogee wrote: »

And vote for a party other than FG or FF.

You've got to vote for the party that represents you best - if FG or FF (who the hell do FF represent anyway?) don't do it, vote for the guys who do.

Apogee

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I've no idea. It might be a dead heat in the not caring stakes - how the hell would I know?

You're doing an outstanding job making the case for not voting FG.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And what do you propose to do about that? Nothing.

I'll be voting for parties who promise to act on the issue and who deem it a higher priority than killing stags.

Monty Burnz

Apogee wrote: »

You're doing an outstanding job making the case for not voting FG.

Are you reading my posts at all? Vote for whoever you want to see in government. Don't vote for someone because some moron on a chat forum tells you to. You seem to think that I am the general public (e.g. "Do the bulk of the population think that killing stags is more important than providing legal protection for the children of same-sex couples?"). I'm not, I'm just one guy. I won't ask you to speak for the whole LGBT community and I'd thank you for not asking me questions as if I represent everyone else.

Apogee wrote: »

I'll be voting for parties who promise to act on the issue and who deem it a higher priority than killing stags.

Great. But if you want to see the SSM laws changed, I trust you'll actually do something positive about it and raise it with whoever gets in government.

TylerIE

Apogee wrote: »

You're doing an outstanding job making the case for not voting FG.



I'll be voting for parties who promise to act on the issue and who deem it a higher priority than killing stags.

And in case its not posted elsewhere, below is links to Marriage Equality's resources on the election.

Manifesto Review:
http://www.marriagequality.ie/news/2011/02/16/marriage-equalitys-election-manifesto-review/

Election to do list
http://www.marriagequality.ie/press/2011/02/02/voters-encouraged-to-quiz-candidates-on-marriage-equality-views/

Apogee

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Are you reading my posts at all? Vote for whoever you want to see in government. Don't vote for someone because some moron on a chat forum tells you to.

Why are you spending so much time then trying to defend FG with this nonsense about priorities?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Great. But if you want to see the SSM laws changed, I trust you'll actually do something positive about it and raise it with whoever gets in government.

Yeah, because FG candidates such as Jimmy Deenihan, Jerry Buttimer, Lucinda Creighton and Richard Bruton have shown themselves to be so receptive on the issue.

Monty Burnz

Apogee wrote: »

Why are you spending so much time then trying to defend FG with this nonsense about priorities?

Fair point. Goodnight.

TylerIE

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Fair point. Goodnight.

Fair point there! Its unfortunate you may have been outnumbered here, my main issue was that you and another poster seem to feel that we should prioritize the economy and forget SSM.

I wasnt having a go at you as a representative of FG or for the policies (or lack of) of FG or any other party.

Donnaghm

lst wrote: »

Fair point there! Its unfortunate you may have been outnumbered here, my main issue was that you and another poster seem to feel that we should prioritize the economy and forget SSM.

I wasnt having a go at you as a representative of FG or for the policies (or lack of) of FG or any other party.

lst and all those exercised by FG stance on this issue, please look away now!
It's everyone's favorite blond arch conservative and her views on gay marriage.

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-do-you-agree-with-lucinda-creightons-comments-on-marriage-2011-02/?voted=1

TylerIE

Donnaghm wrote: »

lst and all those exercised by FG stance on this issue, please look away now!
It's everyone's favorite blond arch conservative and her views on gay marriage.

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-do-you...11-02/?voted=1

exercised by FG stance?????

anyway your link is not working!

Donnaghm

lst wrote: »

exercised by FG stance?????

anyway your link is not working!

It works for me. Try this:
http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-do-you-agree-with-lucinda-creightons-comments-on-marriage-2011-02/?voted=1

TylerIE

Donnaghm wrote: »

It works for me. Try this:
http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-do-you-agree-with-lucinda-creightons-comments-on-marriage-2011-02/?voted=1

Click it - the original wasnt.

On that one... shes obviously totally wrong - what about elderly people or those who cant have kids... and look at the poll results.... and SSM can create an environment for children to grow up...

Thanks for that Donnagh, I will be in touch with her. Still I suppose its a reminder that FG is perhaps worse than FF in this - remember good old Seymour????

Donnaghm

lst wrote: »

Click it - the original wasnt.

On that one... shes obviously totally wrong - what about elderly people or those who cant have kids... and look at the poll results.... and SSM can create an environment for children to grow up...

Thanks for that Donnagh, I will be in touch with her. Still I suppose its a reminder that FG is perhaps worse than FF in this - remember good old Seymour????

I got this Gem from Dermot Ahern's wikipedia page:

"During the debate on decriminalisation of Homosexuality in the Dáil in 1993, he agreed with a statement by Fine Gael TD, Brendan McGahon which reads: "Homosexuality is a departure from normality and while homosexuals deserve our compassion they do not deserve our tolerance" and who described homosexuals as being "like lefthand drivers driving on the right-hand side of the road."

Ahern himself added: "Will we eventually see the day in this country when, as has happened in the USA, homosexuals will seek the right to adopt children? We should think seriously about this possibility". Following his appointment as Minister responsible for equality, Ahern has refused to be drawn on this matter and has not given an answer as to whether he still holds those opinions."
To think we had this dickhead as our Minister for Justice for 5 years.

Also, we must remember how far this country has come. Civil Partnership was unthinkable even ten years ago. All the reps in FG are solidly behind Civil Partnership (the proposed it years ago). FF wouldn't have introduced it without Green pressure ( remember the Senators who vowed to vote against it).

As for Lucinda,I'm surprised a young woman from Dublin South East, a very gay friendly cosmopolitan area, has such a regressive viewpoint on this. She'll probably lose a few votes over this stance.

TylerIE

Donnaghm wrote: »

I got this Gem from Dermot Ahern's wikipedia page:


Also, we must remember how far this country has come. Civil Partnership was unthinkable even ten years ago. All the reps in FG are solidly behind Civil Partnership (the proposed it years ago). FF wouldn't have introduced it without Green pressure ( remember the Senators who vowed to vote against it).

As for Lucinda,I'm surprised a young woman from Dublin South East, a very gay friendly cosmopolitan area, has such a regressive viewpoint on this. She'll probably lose a few votes over this stance.

Cheers for that! I remember something similar that Id posted up here from around the same time by Rory O'Hanlon SC!

And Im sure that FG members at grassroots level will be pushing their party to look at the issue properly. I'd say ye have a huge role in ensuring action occurs, esp if FG gets an overall majority. While I'm excluded from joining any political party its one of the few issues that concerns me to the point that I feel it needs to be tackled from within...

Donnaghm

lst wrote: »

Cheers for that! I remember something similar that Id posted up here from around the same time by Rory O'Hanlon SC!

And Im sure that FG members at grassroots level will be pushing their party to look at the issue properly. I'd say ye have a huge role in ensuring action occurs, esp if FG gets an overall majority. While I'm excluded from joining any political party its one of the few issues that concerns me to the point that I feel it needs to be tackled from within...

Why are you excluded? You a member of the Gardaí?
At a youth level, it's very 50-50 on all social issues. It's a Catholic-Secularist, Rural-Urban divide. We're only united on economic matters (and blind hatred of FF) I've been in the party for 5 years since i was 18, and I have found that attitudes have improved enormously. We have only one openly gay candidate running this election, Pa O'Driscol in Cork East. It should be interesting to know his reaction to his party colleagues.

Also, after Enda's absolutely dire performance tonight, we'll have a FG-Lab coalition by Saturday. Hopefully, Labour will impose it on us.

Annasopra

Donnaghm wrote: »

As for Lucinda,I'm surprised a young woman from Dublin South East, a very gay friendly cosmopolitan area, has such a regressive viewpoint on this. She'll probably lose a few votes over this stance.

A lot of DSE is still very catholic and conservative - Joe Doyle the FG TD there years ago was a bastion of the church - Lucindas vote is safe enough with older conservative voters and she knows it - she wouldn't have been so outspoken otherwise.