Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
NurseJackie
NurseJackie's Journal
NurseJackie's Journal
November 28, 2017
Hillary Clinton and Rosie O'Donnell (Video Clip)
November 11, 2017
Quoting your entire post below so that I can add it to my DU-Journal.
Yes. This. Exactly. Thank you!
Quoting your entire post below so that I can add it to my DU-Journal.
qwlauren35
69. You got me thinking.
View profile
I know the term "trailer trash" and I can imagine that it stings like a bitch to hear yourself referred to that way. Does it sting as much as "ni&&er"? I don't know.
I laugh at Jeff Foxworthy, and thinking about it, the whole "git 'er done" thing with Larry the Cable Guy feeds into stereotypes and gets people laughing at working class Southerners when such jokes about other minority groups would not be acceptable.
SO! Although you say that you're about economic issues, I think when you speak for "your group", you're really looking for some respect.
You are in a group that is not a minority - yet - and maybe seeing minority groups get attention for their deepest issues, like police brutality, abortion and sexual assault, marriage equality, etc., makes you feel as though your issues aren't getting attention. But actually, I think what you're doing, and you don't know you're doing it, is playing the white privilege card, by saying that YOUR issues should be front and center. And suggesting that if we just focused on YOUR issues, everything else would be taken care of.
The economic issues vs. social issues argument played out during the 2016 Democratic primaries and got MAJOR UGLY. In fact, it was so ugly that some Democrats wouldn't vote in the general election. If you weren't one of them, that's a good start. Fixing economic issues doesn't fix social issues related to prejudice. It just doesn't. You've got to let go of that. The Democratic party has a very broad platform that includes both economic and social issues. Social issues related to prejudice don't affect straight white working class men. So it is not surprising that some might want economic issues on top. But it's arrogant. Very arrogant.
I know you don't mean to be arrogant, I know you don't realize that you're invoking white privilege. But please realize that it SOUNDS like you're saying that if economic issues, your issues, straight white working class men's issues, can't be front and center, then the Democrats don't deserve your vote.
Please think long and hard about how you sound when you suggest that economic issues need to come before whether a person has to worry about being shot by the police without having committed a crime. Why can't the issues be side by side? Not everyone has student loan debt, not everyone has had to declare bankruptcy, not everyone struggles to find a job. Those are YOUR issues. And those are some major issues, and you've been through some major shit in your life. I get that. But "front and center"? Instead of side by side?
Do you see what you've done?
I respect you, I hear you. And I get that you want to feel heard, to have your issues paid attention to. And maybe you feel that social issues drown out economic issues. But they don't. They are just side by side. Equal billing. Everyone is heard.
If you're not comfortable with "side by side", then your straight-white-maleness is showing. It may be time for you to become an Independent. Vote based on the person, etc. But I think if you take a serious look at the Republican party, you will find that they aren't putting economic issues at the top of the party platform either. They have "family values". And "Make America Great Again", substitute "great" for "white". So, maybe you would feel more respected with the Republicans, even though they wouldn't solve any of your economic problems.
As a black woman, strongly pro-abortion, and constantly worried that my husband will be pulled over and shot, my issues aren't your issues. The Democratic Party has room for both of us. I don't ask that my issues be front and center. I just want them included. Your issues ARE included. If you want more than that, you need to take a look in the mirror, because you are being part of the problem.
69. You got me thinking.
View profile
I know the term "trailer trash" and I can imagine that it stings like a bitch to hear yourself referred to that way. Does it sting as much as "ni&&er"? I don't know.
I laugh at Jeff Foxworthy, and thinking about it, the whole "git 'er done" thing with Larry the Cable Guy feeds into stereotypes and gets people laughing at working class Southerners when such jokes about other minority groups would not be acceptable.
SO! Although you say that you're about economic issues, I think when you speak for "your group", you're really looking for some respect.
You are in a group that is not a minority - yet - and maybe seeing minority groups get attention for their deepest issues, like police brutality, abortion and sexual assault, marriage equality, etc., makes you feel as though your issues aren't getting attention. But actually, I think what you're doing, and you don't know you're doing it, is playing the white privilege card, by saying that YOUR issues should be front and center. And suggesting that if we just focused on YOUR issues, everything else would be taken care of.
The economic issues vs. social issues argument played out during the 2016 Democratic primaries and got MAJOR UGLY. In fact, it was so ugly that some Democrats wouldn't vote in the general election. If you weren't one of them, that's a good start. Fixing economic issues doesn't fix social issues related to prejudice. It just doesn't. You've got to let go of that. The Democratic party has a very broad platform that includes both economic and social issues. Social issues related to prejudice don't affect straight white working class men. So it is not surprising that some might want economic issues on top. But it's arrogant. Very arrogant.
I know you don't mean to be arrogant, I know you don't realize that you're invoking white privilege. But please realize that it SOUNDS like you're saying that if economic issues, your issues, straight white working class men's issues, can't be front and center, then the Democrats don't deserve your vote.
Please think long and hard about how you sound when you suggest that economic issues need to come before whether a person has to worry about being shot by the police without having committed a crime. Why can't the issues be side by side? Not everyone has student loan debt, not everyone has had to declare bankruptcy, not everyone struggles to find a job. Those are YOUR issues. And those are some major issues, and you've been through some major shit in your life. I get that. But "front and center"? Instead of side by side?
Do you see what you've done?
I respect you, I hear you. And I get that you want to feel heard, to have your issues paid attention to. And maybe you feel that social issues drown out economic issues. But they don't. They are just side by side. Equal billing. Everyone is heard.
If you're not comfortable with "side by side", then your straight-white-maleness is showing. It may be time for you to become an Independent. Vote based on the person, etc. But I think if you take a serious look at the Republican party, you will find that they aren't putting economic issues at the top of the party platform either. They have "family values". And "Make America Great Again", substitute "great" for "white". So, maybe you would feel more respected with the Republicans, even though they wouldn't solve any of your economic problems.
As a black woman, strongly pro-abortion, and constantly worried that my husband will be pulled over and shot, my issues aren't your issues. The Democratic Party has room for both of us. I don't ask that my issues be front and center. I just want them included. Your issues ARE included. If you want more than that, you need to take a look in the mirror, because you are being part of the problem.
November 8, 2017
AL FRANKEN totally ROCKS!! He's one of us... HE IS A *TRUE* DEMOCRAT!
I love that he's loyal to the party... in good times and bad. I love that he's SMART ENOUGH to only do and say things that STRENGTHEN the party. I love that he's not VAIN AND ARROGANT and that he doesn't feel selfishly compelled to smear and tar and denigrate Democrats. He's got such a charming and "down-home" DEMEANOR. He makes me SO PROUD to be a Democrat! I just love him to pieces!
November 1, 2017
Please stop. Just... stop.
Yes it is.
8. It's not "attacking" anyone,
You're splitting hairs. It's not an attack against any one... it's an attack against Democratic party leaders (and by extension, the Democratic party itself). I think you've forgotten that I'm much smarter than you give me credit for, Ken. I'm not easily confused by word-games or hair-splitting.
and I'm as much a Democrat as you are.
Irrelevant faux-defense. A diversion. Nobody said anything about that at all. Nobody has accused you of not being a Democrat.
It's about pointing out the task the activists and the base have.
No it's not. What you're doing is smearing party leaders with a backhanded insinuation and smear that they're naturally inclined to be pro-war.
The OP is simply calling on us to learn from history.
LOL ... at the risk of repeating myself, I must remind you that I'm much smarter than you give me credit for.
You would agree that we'll have to mobilize against any military intervention Trump would lead, right?
Irrelevant. That has nothing to do with the original post. It's not a defense of anything previously said. This is just an attempt to change the subject by making an obvious statement in which everyone can agree.
I have nothing in common with Sarandon and her choices.
Irrelevant faux-defense. A diversion. Nobody said you did. What I am saying, however, is that this type of attack/smear against Democrats (in the OP and your first follow-up) is the same type of smear that's very similar to the ones used by Sarandon to insinuate that Democrats are "pro-war".
Please stop. Just... stop.
August 10, 2017
Question submitted by NurseJackie
The text of this question will be publicly available after it has been reviewed and answered by a DU Administrator. Please be aware that sometimes messages are not answered immediately. Thank you for your patience. --The DU Administrators
March 21, 2017
AL FRANKEN totally ROCKS!! He's a TRUE DEMOCRAT!!
That was a thing of beauty! I love to listen to him speak... so calm and measured. He's focused and on-point.
He's friendly and disarming... but you know he means business. He doesn't need to SHOUT to be heard. His demeanor and sincerity are what command attention. He doesn't need to rely on distracting gimmicks.
Man, oh man! That was great!
We need more TRUE DEMOCRATS like Al Franken!
Honest tagod... he makes me PROUD to be a Democrat!
March 19, 2017
... than there are of the middle-of-the-road and first-time voters, this might be a good plan. But there aren't. People who say such things are flattering themselves and inflating their numbers or sense of importance. Don't get me wrong... I'm not suggesting that subset of people aren't important at all (of course they are! Everyone is important, right?) Instead, I'm pointing out that they aren't more important and their lower numbers do not justify alienating a larger pool of potential members.
But it's clear for me to see that there are some here who are among that subset who remain disenchanted with the Democratic Party and derive a great deal of DELIGHT whenever Bernie slams and smears the party with his public declarations (such as how the party is "intellectually bankrupt", or some such.)
That subset ENJOYS hearing it and that's why they defend Bernie's "methods". His negative comments about the party is a continual validation of the things they still believe and it fans the flames of whatever inconsolable dissatisfaction they still have with the party. But, as happy as it makes them... and as satisfying as it may be to continually hear... it interferes and prevents him from fulfilling his mission of "Outreach". It continues to emphasize the division, in my opinion. Bernie's negativity does nothing to console or build bridges or to find common ground, it seems to me.
Base on my observations, his "target" audience loves it. For that specific groups, his negative words are a public "justification" and "validation" of all their unexpressed anger and pent-up outrage. It's a continual thorn in the side of the party. I imagine for them it's something to be viewed as great entertainment, and every sour word spoken about the party makes those guys grin and pump their fists in the air.
But, at some point, calmer heads will hopefully prevail. Eventually, I hope, they'll set aside whatever pleasure and enjoyment they're getting from this and do something ELSE that's better for the party. (Assuming that they're actually willing to give up their selfish pursuits and made rational decisions that benefit the party... and therefore put the party in a better position to defeat the GOP.)
I don't see the long-term benefit of continually needling the party and it's loyal members in that way. In my opinion, it's a flawed strategy (assuming that an actual forward-looking strategy is in the mix at all). Basically, it's just not a good return on investment. Sure, that are some malcontents to appease and coddle, but there are fewer of them, and they're fickle and unreliable. On the optimistic side, there are more MOTR and LOC voters to gain by taking a positive approach ... and this is a much more realistic way to pursue long-term growth and stability.
I guess everyone has different priorities. Personally, I believe the Party's interests are more important than my own "needs" or "vanities". I'll always put the Democratic Party first. I'm a LOYAL Democrat who has NEVER entertained the possibility of leaving the party to "send a message".
Any message that I have for our party can be best heard when calmly spoken from inside, not angrily shouted from outside.
----
Hello, Alerter! This post contains my opinions about the best way to attract large amounts of NEW members to the Democratic party compared to continuing to soothe the hurt feelings of a small number of disaffected people. It doesn't smear anyone, it expresses my belief that Bernie is making a mistake and that our party needs someone in that "Outreach" role who has a better attitude about the party. No politician or group is being smeared. This concerns the activities in 2017, and has nothing to do with the primary.
Tha's nice for the "disenchanted or cynical". If there were actually more of those "voters"...
Hello, Alerter! This post contains my opinions about the best way to attract large amounts of NEW members to the Democratic party compared to continuing to soothe the hurt feelings of a small number of disaffected people. It doesn't smear anyone, it expresses my belief that Bernie is making a mistake and that our party needs someone in that "Outreach" role who has a better attitude about the party. No politician or group is being smeared. This concerns the activities in 2017, and has nothing to do with the primary.
... than there are of the middle-of-the-road and first-time voters, this might be a good plan. But there aren't. People who say such things are flattering themselves and inflating their numbers or sense of importance. Don't get me wrong... I'm not suggesting that subset of people aren't important at all (of course they are! Everyone is important, right?) Instead, I'm pointing out that they aren't more important and their lower numbers do not justify alienating a larger pool of potential members.
It's not traditional, I grant you that, but traditional is not enough these days.
I guess it all depends on whether someone is going after a very small and special audience or if they're pursuing a much larger one. Yeah, "I'll grant you" that pursuing the small group is indeed "not traditional".
I'll be honest: I was ready to leave the party after the primary and declare myself an independent, but Bernie kept me in the party. And now the DNC gets some of my money.
You were going to "leave the party", huh? I'm very glad you decided not to be fickle "me-first" crowd.
But it's clear for me to see that there are some here who are among that subset who remain disenchanted with the Democratic Party and derive a great deal of DELIGHT whenever Bernie slams and smears the party with his public declarations (such as how the party is "intellectually bankrupt", or some such.)
That subset ENJOYS hearing it and that's why they defend Bernie's "methods". His negative comments about the party is a continual validation of the things they still believe and it fans the flames of whatever inconsolable dissatisfaction they still have with the party. But, as happy as it makes them... and as satisfying as it may be to continually hear... it interferes and prevents him from fulfilling his mission of "Outreach". It continues to emphasize the division, in my opinion. Bernie's negativity does nothing to console or build bridges or to find common ground, it seems to me.
Base on my observations, his "target" audience loves it. For that specific groups, his negative words are a public "justification" and "validation" of all their unexpressed anger and pent-up outrage. It's a continual thorn in the side of the party. I imagine for them it's something to be viewed as great entertainment, and every sour word spoken about the party makes those guys grin and pump their fists in the air.
But, at some point, calmer heads will hopefully prevail. Eventually, I hope, they'll set aside whatever pleasure and enjoyment they're getting from this and do something ELSE that's better for the party. (Assuming that they're actually willing to give up their selfish pursuits and made rational decisions that benefit the party... and therefore put the party in a better position to defeat the GOP.)
I don't see the long-term benefit of continually needling the party and it's loyal members in that way. In my opinion, it's a flawed strategy (assuming that an actual forward-looking strategy is in the mix at all). Basically, it's just not a good return on investment. Sure, that are some malcontents to appease and coddle, but there are fewer of them, and they're fickle and unreliable. On the optimistic side, there are more MOTR and LOC voters to gain by taking a positive approach ... and this is a much more realistic way to pursue long-term growth and stability.
I guess everyone has different priorities. Personally, I believe the Party's interests are more important than my own "needs" or "vanities". I'll always put the Democratic Party first. I'm a LOYAL Democrat who has NEVER entertained the possibility of leaving the party to "send a message".
Any message that I have for our party can be best heard when calmly spoken from inside, not angrily shouted from outside.
----
Hello, Alerter! This post contains my opinions about the best way to attract large amounts of NEW members to the Democratic party compared to continuing to soothe the hurt feelings of a small number of disaffected people. It doesn't smear anyone, it expresses my belief that Bernie is making a mistake and that our party needs someone in that "Outreach" role who has a better attitude about the party. No politician or group is being smeared. This concerns the activities in 2017, and has nothing to do with the primary.
March 1, 2017
What an odd post. There must be more to this. What's the context? I get the feeling...
I get the feeling that we're seeing just one side of a conversation gone bad (perhaps a hidden thread or deleted post?)
Is this a cryptic and detail-free question just a way of seeking approval and agreement by overly simplifying things and removing all context? Something's not right.
It sounds to me like someone is trying to have the "last word", and to get others to agree, (strength in numbers perhaps?) to an hypothetical point that lacks the details of what's actually being argued as well as lacking any points that may have been made by some other party (parties?)
Or was some other public argument abruptly ended before you had a chance to land your "knock-out blow" or to make your final "winning" argument?
Ken... sometimes, the person who manages to get in the "last word" isn't always the winner of an argument. There aren't "bonus points" for obsessively getting-in the last word. (But, in some cases, hasty attempts to get the all-important all-powerful last-word actually end up looking pretty lame and probably deserve to be assessed a penalty and a "loss of points".)
Carrying-on lost arguments by proxy (under the guise of the theoretical) is a sign of weakness. It's not a very mature way to handle disagreements. Those who do such things aren't doing themselves, or their pet-causes, any favors.
Sometimes, Ken, it's best to just let things go and move on.
#BeLikeKeith
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: Mon Oct 19, 2015, 02:14 PM
Number of posts: 42,862
