I support Nancy Pelosi and want her to continue as speaker but yesterday I wish

[mfcorey1]

that someone who is really boisterous had delivered our recap of the Democratic accomplishments during the midterms. After drumpf's theatrical performance, the truth needed to shouted from the rafters and then some of our base would not have spent the day mourning about what we lost. IJS

[Vinca]

1. Re the mourning. Someone on MSNBC - forget who - said something that made sense about

how down we were feeling. Dems become emotionally involved with candidates. We love Beto and Gillum and Abrams. We know they're the best candidates for their positions and we know they're probably victims of dirty tricks. It's hard not to feel down when they are so close, but yet so far. Today everyone seems to be coming around to the giant victory we had and realizing all we can do is fight against gerrymandering and voter suppression and believe that someday the best candidates won't be stopped from winning.

[themaguffin]

8. I heard that too - Lawrence maybe said it...?

[NurseJackie]

2. There's always a "but" in these anti-Pelosi threads.

There's always a "but" in these anti-Pelosi threads.

I like her, BUT...
I support her, BUT...
She's been great, BUT...
I appreciate her service, BUT...
Of course she's qualified, BUT...
Nothing against women, BUT...
It's not that she's old, BUT...

I'm sick of it all these backhanded slaps against her and of people giving themselves "permission" to attack her as long as there's a semi-compliment followed by "b-u-ut"

[mfcorey1]

3. That is what you read and chose to perpetuate. Things are not like you read them and the

intentions you created are just vile, BUT I still love Nancy Pelosi, no matter what kind of adversity you try to insinuate in my post. Peace my fellow Democrat.

[NurseJackie]

5. No, your meaning was clear.

That is what you read and chose to perpetuate. Things are not like you read them and the
intentions you created are just vile,

No, your meaning was clear. Anyone can plainly see that "you support Nancy" BUT , you wish she was more boisterous.

no matter what kind of adversity you try to insinuate in my post.

I'm insinuating nothing. Your post is right there for anyone to read.

All I'm trying to say is that whether or not it was your actual intent... these types of truly petty criticisms and nit-picking of Nancy Pelosi serve no good purpose. It only creates distrust and perpetuates the GOP's false narrative that she's "incompetent" or that she's "the wrong person for the job" (blah blah blah). Things that weaken our party, and which tarnish our brand (and our leaders) only serve to benefit the GOP.

Peace my fellow Democrat.

Thank you.

[mfcorey1]

6. Nancy is a powerful soft spoken woman. At that moment I indicated what I want.

I never posted that trash you have stated. Now, you can read into to it whatever you want. I have my feelings and you have yours. Dropping this conversation that is being nitpicked. Proceed if you like.

[NurseJackie]

7. Actually, I never said you did.

I never posted that trash you have stated.

Actually, I never said you did. That's a strawman argument.

What I *did* do, however, was to provide examples of how most attacks on Pelosi usually follow the same predictable pattern of "mild-compliment/but..." --- this was done to illustrate that YOUR nitpicking criticism of her followed that same pattern as well.

At that moment I indicated what I want.

Yes. I know. I saw.

Clearly, you support her BUT you think she's not boisterous enough. Got it! For whatever reason, you have an apparent desire for Pelosi to perpetuate the toxic atmosphere by being more "boisterous"... and that it's somehow a shortcoming and flaw of Nancy Pelosi for not satisfying what you want.

Dropping this conversation that is being nitpicked.

Actually, the only person being "nitpicked" is Nancy Pelosi.

[EffieBlack]

11. That's what she read because that's what you wrote

[Demsrule86]

13. This is an anti-Pelosi post. Despite the way you phrased it...and it is bad enough for the GOP

to belittle a smart accomplished woman and demonetize our side constantly especially women...it is just wrong for our side to join in and that is what I consider this post- joining in. The reason the GOP want her out is that she is effective. The truly powerful do not need to waive their hands and shout to make their points. I would remind you and others that we would not have the ACA without Nancy. We would not have had the 2006 majority nor the one obtained a couple of days ago without her careful leadership.

[EffieBlack]

10. She sounded intelligent and articulate and organized BUT she should have been more "boistrous"

It never ends, does it?

[NurseJackie]

12. I know.

It never ends, does it?

No, it doesn't. It's all completely predictable, however. The timing, the target, the pattern, the pettiness... all these attacks and smears of Democratic leaders (and the party itself) are as predictable as the morning sun.

I like to imagine how different things could be (or could have been) if these unnecessary smears and attacks were reserved exclusively for the GOP instead of weakening our own party by creating division and distrust... instead of dividing our party with grudges and resentment.

All I'm trying to say is that at this crucial junction, we can't afford the luxury of attacking or denigrating or second-guessing our party's leaders. It serves no good purpose to portray Nancy Pelosi as being incompetent or "too soft"... in fact, that only benefits the GOP, so why would any reasonable person do things that benefit the GOP?

[Demsrule86]

15. And this sort of thing is what cost us the 2016 election and has neutered the Clintons in

political terms. People need to circle the wagons and not let the GOP destroy our leaders or we will pay a heavy price.

[2naSalit]

4. What's wrong with

soft spoken, well reasoned, factual reassurance for the frazzled populous? Enough of the shouting over each other. We're so conditioned to abusive nonconvesation that that's all we recognize anymore... this is by design. Nancy isn't conditioned and she intends to bring the tone down and move forward with reasoned intent and action. That's what a lot of us want, along with policy and personnel change, is a return to civility. That's one thing I'd like to see too.

[EffieBlack]

9. She was covered live on the cable networks and talked like an intelligent, rational person

Anyone watching her surely heard and understood exactly what she was saying. If anyone wasn't watching her, they weren't watching her, so why do you think someone would have been more effective if they were shouting?

[Demsrule86]

14. +100000

Absolutely correct.