HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » NurseJackie » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 24 Next »

NurseJackie

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Oct 19, 2015, 02:14 PM
Number of posts: 31,578

Journal Archives

COMPLETE meltdown. COMPLETE lack of communication. NO LEADERSHIP!

COMPLETE meltdown. COMPLETE lack of communication. NO LEADERSHIP! NO captain! No helmsman. A complete leadership vacuum! They're running around like headless chickens. They're in a panic. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

Honestly... all I'm trying to point out is that if their campaign is this fucked up in how they're dealing with this current crisis (ie: losing the primaries) can you imagine what a Sanders administration would be like when they tried to handle the unexpected??

The people a candidate chooses to run his (or her) campaign, and how well that campaign is run (whether it's effective and efficient and honest and with integrity) is a strong indicator of how the candidate will govern if elected.

I think it's pretty clear given what we've seen all last week... a Bernie Sanders administration would be a chaotic mess.

According to Hillary's recent Hulu documentary: "Nobody likes him..."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hillary-clinton-debuts-hulu-doc-at-sundance-addresses-bernie-sanders-comments-1272839

Shortly after THR's in-depth interview with Clinton was published on Tuesday, her comments about Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders ó "Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done," she says in the documentary ó prompted the hashtag #nobodylikeshim to quickly became a top trend on Twitter.

I guess you must have missed all the insults and lies and attacks and smears.

It's odd to me how some Democrats here treat Bernie like heís an enemy.
I guess you must have missed all the insults and lies and attacks and smears.

I certainly donít feel that way about Biden or any other Dem candidates.
Which other "Dem candidates" have so ruthlessly and dishonestly sought to smear and divide and weaken the Democratic party with lies and attacks?

It's DISHONEST to say that Democrats are "ideologically bankrupt". It's DISHONEST to say that Democrats are "feeble". It's DISHONEST to say that Democrats are "corrupt". It's DISHONEST to say that the Democratic party is an "absolute failure". It's DISHONEST to say that the Democratic party is "the party of the one-percent". It's DISHONEST to say that the Democratic party is the "party of the elite". It's DISHONEST to say that there's "no difference between Democrats and Republicans." It's DISHONEST to say that Democrats are "do-nothings". It's DISHONEST to say that the Democratic party "doesn't care about climate change." It's DISHONEST to say that the Democrats "focus too much" on diversity. It's also DISHONEST to say that people who the refuse to vote for an African-American because of his skin color "aren't racists". It's also DISHONEST to say that the Democrats who "are very big into diversity" aren't "particularly sympathetic" to the working class.

What good purpose does it serve to promote this kind of dishonesty? It's divisive. It weakens us by creating resentment and suspicion. It makes new voters less willing to support Democrats if they're continually being told that "their vote doesn't matter" and that "the election is rigged" and that "both sides are the same anyway".

That kind of negativity generates apathy. Apathy discourages voter turnout. Low voter turnout gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections.

All I'm trying to point out to yous is this... you've got someone who consistently and continuously treats the Democratic party as if it were his personal sworn enemy... do you honestly think that it's realistic that stalwart and loyal Democrats would just smile and say nothing? Do you think that lifelong Democrats are going to stand there and be insulted and demeaned AND ALSO welcome him with open arms? Do you think that's realistic? What exactly were you expecting?

Remember that one time when he had a rally in North Charleston, SC? BS can't even get AA and POC...

Remember that one time when he had a rally in North Charleston, SC? BS can't even get AA and POC to attend a rally at an historically BLACK church in a MAJORITY BLACK neighborhood, within a MAJORITY BLACK city.

I knew right then and there that it was OVER for Bernie Sanders!

His rally (although well-attended) had so LITTLE ethnic diversity that it looked like he could have been somewhere Vermont. In fact, based on the statistics, the demographics at that rally was even whiter than Vermont.

It's obvious that the AA and POC community are rejecting BS and the BS campaign. They did then, and they still do NOW. He can't make headway. He hasn't been able to refine and tune his message.

BS just doesn't connect with that community. The BS message just isn't resonating. When the AA voters don't even BOTHER to show up to a rally that's RIGHT THERE in their city, their neighborhood, their church facility... well that is a SERIOUS SNUB and COMPLETE REJECTION.

All I'm saying is, with such a humiliating rejection by the AA and POC communities, and without their vote, BS doesn't stand a chance.



If a politician is unwilling to compromise and find common ground and mutual interests, then...

If a politician is unwilling to compromise and find common ground and mutual interests, then that politician will fail and walk away with NOTHING. (And then, get this, that politician will BOAST AND BRAG about getting ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!)

Meanwhile, the most vulnerable among us continue to suffer because some politicians want to boast and brag about "holding firm" and "never compromising" their principles.

Fact of the matter is this (and something that the most egotistical politicians fail to understand... no matter who he or she may be) is that incremental progress IS STILL FUCKING PROGRESS!!! It's NOT standing still... it's better than we were before even if it's not the whole thing, a half a loaf is better than nothing at all. A single piece of pie is better than nothing at all.

So, the politician/s who claim/s that he (or she, whatever) will never negotiate and never "bargain with the enemy" is a fool! That type of egotistical and obstinate attitude ultimately means that they are (either willingly or unwillingly) maintaining the status quo. When nothing changes, what we have is the status quo. If a politician is unwilling to accept incremental change and is unwilling to compromise, then the "status quo" wins again.

That's not what I'd call being "progressive".

I'm Ridin' with Biden 💗



C'MON! GET IN! We're taking back America!



It's DISHONEST to say that Democrats are "ideologically bankrupt".

It's DISHONEST to say that Democrats are "ideologically bankrupt". It's DISHONEST to say that Democrats are "feeble". It's DISHONEST to say that Democrats are "corrupt". It's DISHONEST to say that the Democratic party is an "absolute failure". It's DISHONEST to say that the Democratic party is "the party of the one-percent". It's DISHONEST to say that the Democratic party is the "party of the elite". It's DISHONEST to say that there's "no difference between Democrats and Republicans." It's DISHONEST to say that Democrats are "do-nothings". It's DISHONEST to say that the Democratic party "doesn't care about climate change." It's DISHONEST to say that the Democrats "focus too much" on diversity. It's also DISHONEST to say that people who the refuse to vote for an African-American because of his skin color "aren't racists". It's also DISHONEST to say that the Democrats who "are very big into diversity" aren't "particularly sympathetic" to the working class.

What good purpose does it serve to promote this kind of dishonesty? It's divisive. It weakens us by creating resentment and suspicion. It makes new voters less willing to support Democrats if they're continually being told that "their vote doesn't matter" and that "the election is rigged" and that "both sides are the same anyway".

That kind of negativity generates apathy. Apathy discourages voter turnout. Low voter turnout gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections.

That's a chance I'm willing to take.

As a party, our odds of success and growth are better without him. He's a divisive individual who has nothing but the greatest contempt for our great party. I've had enough. Nobody should remain silent and politely allow anyone to smear and attack and denigrate the Democratic party with lie after lie.

It's NOT TRUE that Democrats are "ideologically bankrupt". It's NOT TRUE that the Democratic party is "intellectually bankrupt". It's NOT TRUE that Democrats are "feeble". It's NOT TRUE that Democrats are "corrupt". It's NOT TRUE that the Democratic party is an "absolute failure". It's NOT TRUE that the Democratic party is "the party of the one-percent". It's NOT TRUE that the Democratic party is the "party of the elite". It's NOT TRUE that there's "no difference between Democrats and Republicans." It's NOT TRUE that the Democratic party is "as bad as the GOP". It's NOT TRUE that Democrats are "do-nothings". It's NOT TRUE that the Democratic party "doesn't care about climate change." It's NOT TRUE that the Democrats "focus too much" on diversity. It's also NOT TRUE that people who the refuse to vote for an African-American because of his skin color "aren't racists". It's also NOT TRUE that the Democrats who "are very big into diversity" aren't "particularly sympathetic" to the working class.

What good purpose does it serve for any high-profile politician to say things like that? It only creates division. Division weakens the party. It only creates suspicion and resentment and distrust. Negativity generates apathy. Apathy discourages voter turnout. Low voter turnout gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections.

That's not what a leader does. Insulting loyal and stalwart Democrats is NOT how someone behaves if they're trying to convince me that they deserve to be this party's leader.

Honestly, we deserve better than that. For so many obvious reasons, we should stand firm against those types of threats.




Because never compromising and walking away with NOTHING is better than making...

He doesnít change his principles for political reasons like all the others do.
Because never compromising and walking away with NOTHING is better than making some progress toward the ultimate goal, right? He may be getting no closer to what he wants... he may be making zero PROGRESS... but at least he has his principles, eh?

The vanity of choosing "principles" and "never compromise" INSTEAD OF finding common ground, mutual beneficial interests, and making SOME progress (even if it's just a little) makes absolute no sense to me. Why would someone choose "nothing" over "something"? Why deny those among us who are the most vulnerable for the sake of one politician's vanity and pride? What good purpose does it serve for a politician to boast about their unwavering and uncompromising "principles" when people are suffering?

Very strange priorities.

The candidate that I support will be one who respects all and who seeks to find compromise where everyone participates and benefits. Even if we don't get EVERYTHING we hope for, making a little progress now and a little progress later gets us closer to where we hope to be. That's what "progressive" is to me.

Those who choose to remain motionless until "perfect" comes along are actually preserving the status-quo. That's not progress. That's vanity and ego.

The great level of care given to the hair-splitting and hyper-parsing and nit-picking...

The great level of care given to the hair-splitting and hyper-parsing and nit-picking reveals a position of weakness in this argument.

Fact of the matter is, he does have other ongoing issues that we can easily observe (his worsening osteoporosis for one) and others that we know about (the "fainting" spell, and the abdominal hernia were both in the news) and the absence of the full and complete medical report (as originally promised) rather than a quick "doctor's note" summary... well, all I'm trying to say is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, if there was nothing to hide, it would obviously be in his campaign's best interest to fully share this type of info. If there was absolutely nothing to hide, then it would surely help and benefit his campaign and put and end to the speculation. Yet... here we are, still wondering what's been left out and still speculating.

Obviously, someone at campaign headquarters has decided that the speculation is somehow "less threatening" to the campaign than the truth and openness and honesty. Otherwise, why withhold that which was previously promised? These are fair questions and the voters deserve answers that are honest and forthcoming. That's not too much to ask. Is it?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 24 Next »