HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » NurseJackie » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »

NurseJackie

Profile Information

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

Journal Archives

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 doesn’t 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?

Nobody in my family will vote for him... they have told me so.

He's a Socialist, that's their reason. (And they don't like the finger wagging either... that made me laugh.) But mostly, and in all sincerity, they don't like his Socialist self-identification and they believe his contempt of the Democratic party would make him a poor party leader.

I can't say that I disagree with them. Those are all fair criticisms. I'll bet they're not the only ones who'll stay home either. Sad.

Here's the actual news clipping:



President Kennedy was elected while I was at the University of Chicago, that was 1960. I remember being physically nauseated at his speech and that doesn't happen very often. He debated Nixon on Cuba. And their hated for the Cuban Revolution, both of them, was so strong. Kennedy was young and appealing and ostensibly liberal, but I think at that point, seeing Kennedy, and what liberalism was, was probably a significant step for me to understand that the conventional politics or liberalism was not was relevant.


Why would Kennedy's opposition-to and "hatred for the Cuban Revolution" elicit such a response from Bernie? That sure sounds like the reaction that someone would have if they have a certain "fondness" or respect or admiration for the Cuban Revolution.

It's pretty clear what he's saying and what he's getting at there. He even repeats it for emphasis at the end.

Bernie Sanders once said that he was "physically nauseated" by a speech made by Kennedy

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ilanbenmeir/bernie-sanders-despised-democrats-in-1980s-said-a-jfk-speech

Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders once said that he was "physically nauseated" by a speech made by President John F. Kennedy when Sanders was a young man, because Kennedy's "hatred for the Cuban Revolution [...] was so strong."

"Kennedy was young and appealing and ostensibly liberal," Sanders reminisced in a 1987 interview with The Gadfly, a student newspaper at the University of Vermont. "But I think at that point, seeing through Kennedy, and what liberalism was, was probably a significant step for me to understand that conventional politics or liberalism was not what was relevant."

No he didn't.

https://twitter.com/CarlosMVizcarra/status/1232330078450782210

medium.com/@carlosmvizcarra/no-bernie-sanders-discussion-of-cuba-s-castro-is-nothing-like-obama-s-ab2a1621aa00

Eric Levitz in New York Magazine on Monday makes the case that Bernie Sanders’ 1985 interview admiring some aspects of Fidel Castro’s regime in Cuba was roughly the same as Barack Obama’s 2016 discussion of Castro. This is in large part just an amplification of ideas flying around Twitter this week, as in the tweet pictured above. A quick look at Sanders’ and Obama’s statements shows why this analysis is entirely incorrect.

In 2016, Obama was addressing hundreds of young business and social entrepreneurs from across Latin America in Buenos Aires, Argentina. If you read the transcript of his talk, you see immediately that Obama, in his signature style, was reinforcing the message of pragmatism and evidence-based decision making — as he puts it “be[ing] practical and just choos[ing] from what works.” He was in fact arguing against ideology, at a time when he must have been watching the destabilizing effects the surge in ideological politics was causing not just in the United States but in other countries long considered staid and practical.

In discussing Cuba, Obama relayed direct conversations he had with the Castros, insight into the diplomacy of highlighting policy areas where there might be more agreement in order to create common ground with space to push for change in other areas. I doubt many would think it rational to approach a nascent foreign relationship with a guns blazing, take no prisoners attitude, especially when any agreement depended on the other country’s support. Obama was relaying one relatively high stakes conversation with foreign leaders to another unaligned audience in a foreign venue. I expect it does not take an expert in international relations to see the U.S. interest in pitching this information a certain way for both of these audiences.

In contrast, Bernie Sanders’ 1985 interview was not conducted for foreign consumption or to support U.S. national interests, and it did not come at a time of opening up in the U.S.-Cuba relationship. Instead, it was given for a local public access TV show. It was effectively a vanity project giving Sanders a platform to expound his views of politics and the world. Because of this, the messaging here is all Sanders. Further contrasting Obama, it was rooted in ideology, with Sanders opening, “As a socialist, the word socialism doesn’t frighten me,” before launching into his discussion of self-described socialist regimes. While you could argue the interview might not be a perfect snapshot of today’s presidential candidate’s innermost thoughts, it was a clear statement of what Sanders believed at the time and unfiltered by the degree of drafting and review Obama’s messaging on this topic would have undergone....

From this brief look, we can see that Obama’s talk involved a little flattery, a little spin, and a good deal of appealing to an audience that he saw as future leaders. In contrast, Sanders’ words were simply praise without an intentional objective towards a defined audience. Conflating these two discussions is flimsy, misleading, and indicative of the pro-regime propaganda captured in Sanders’ own sentiment.

No, President Obama did not say the same thing as BS about Cuba.

No, President Obama did not say the same thing as BS about Cuba.

BS was talking about what he thinks Castro's revolution brought to Cuba in 1959.

President Obama was talking about the post 2014 strides that Cuba had made as part of the negotiated
pre-conditions for normalizing US-Cuba relations.
Cuba had to meet benchmarks during the gradual process of moving towards normalization.

President Obama made the remarks at a joint press conference in Cuba in March 2016.

US presidential visit

President Obama arrived in Cuba for a three-day visit on March 20, 2016. Obama headed a delegation of between 800 and 1,200, including business people and congressional leaders who had helped in establishing the 2014 normalization deal.

Obama was the first sitting U.S. president to visit Cuba since Calvin Coolidge in 1928. Obama said that he would only visit Cuba if he could meet with Cuban dissidents: "If I go on a visit, then part of the deal is that I get to talk to everybody. I've made it very clear in my conversations directly with President Raúl Castro that we would continue to reach out to those who want to broaden the scope for, you know, free expression inside of Cuba."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_thaw

***************************************************************************************

David Sirota used an abruptly edited short clip in order mislead people. Here's the context that Sirota failed to provide. It's not the first time

Remarks by President Obama and President Raul Castro of Cuba in a Joint Press Conference

Palace of the Revolution
Havana, Cuba
March 21, 2016

Our growing engagement with Cuba is guided by one overarching goal -- advancing the mutual interests of our two countries, including improving the lives of our people, both Cubans and Americans. That’s why I’m here.

I’ve said consistently, after more than five very difficult decades, the relationship between our governments will not be transformed overnight. We continue, as President Castro indicated, to have some very serious differences, including on democracy and human rights. And President Castro and I have had very frank and candid conversations on these subjects.

The United States recognizes progress that Cuba has made as a nation, its enormous achievements in education and in health care. And perhaps most importantly, I affirmed that Cuba’s destiny will not be decided by the United States or any other nation. Cuba is sovereign and, rightly, has great pride. And the future of Cuba will be decided by Cubans, not by anybody else.

At the same time, as we do wherever we go around the world, I made it clear that the United States will continue to speak up on behalf of democracy, including the right of the Cuban people to decide their own future. We’ll speak out on behalf of universal human rights, including freedom of speech, and assembly, and religion. Indeed, I look forward to meeting with and hearing from Cuban civil society leaders tomorrow.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/21/remarks-president-obama-and-president-raul-castro-cuba-joint-press%20

It's disgusting the way Sirota continually tries to play the electorate for a fool and really sad that people keep falling for his dissembling.

Jane Sanders had some interesting election day advice to her twitter followers.

I believe it's extremely likely that many Democrats will probably follow the advice given by Jane Sanders to her twitter followers last election day. Basically, it seems to me that she was expressing her belief that it was okay to not vote for the party's nominee... as long as the person voted and "followed their heart".



And Hitler's Germany had a awesome highway system, eh?

Hey, Bernie! Mussolini wasn't so bad because he got the trains to run on time. Can you see now how your comment was a mistake?
And Hitler's Germany had a awesome highway system, eh?

All I'm saying is: It's just remarkable the Bernie Sanders didn't understand why it was wrong then, and he he still doesn't understand (or lacks the personal integrity and political chops) to simply apologize and admit his failure. Instead he doubles-down.

We deserve better. He lacks the demeanor and temperament and humility and compassion that's needed to be our nation's leader. I'm tired of stubborn and rude leaders. I won't be supporting Bernie.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »