HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » NurseJackie » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »

NurseJackie

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Oct 19, 2015, 02:14 PM
Number of posts: 26,088

Journal Archives

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ EXCELLENT QUESTION!!

Why wasn't the Sanders Campaign straightforward with the public....
...instead of concealing the fact that he had a heart attack for almost three days?
Why wouldn't they be forthcoming and honest from the very beginning? The BS campaign was reporting "no heart attack" as if it were fact, but it wasn't. Why didn't they just say "too early to tell" or "we don't know yet" or words to that effect?

Now that the precedent has been set... now that we know what to expect... (and now that we know the TRUTH is TOTALLY OPPOSITE from what they told us) I'm afraid that I will now (and forever more) have a VERY DIFFICULT TIME in being able to trust any news at all that comes from them.

All I'm saying is... they should have been honest, direct, transparent and forthcoming FROM THE VERY BEGINNING... but they weren't. And that's a shame. The BS campaign has totally lost my trust on this matter. I can't believe anything they say when it comes to this subject.

Why wouldn't they be forthcoming and honest from the very beginning?

At first they were insisting he hadn't had a heart attack.
Why wouldn't they be forthcoming and honest from the very beginning? The BS campaign was reporting "no heart attack" as if it were fact, but it wasn't. Why didn't they just say "too early to tell" or "we don't know yet" or words to that effect?

Now that the precedent has been set... now that we know what to expect... (and now that we know the TRUTH is TOTALLY OPPOSITE from what they told us) I'm afraid that I will now (and forever more) have a VERY DIFFICULT TIME in being able to trust any news at all that comes from them.

All I'm saying is... they should have been honest, direct, transparent and forthcoming FROM THE VERY BEGINNING... but they weren't. And that's a shame. The BS campaign has totally lost my trust on this matter. I can't believe anything they say when it comes to this subject.

Those are some GRIM numbers. It doesn't look good, does it?

One of my priorities in choosing a candidate is to make sure that he (or she) is someone who can fulfill EIGHT YEARS (two terms) in office. There's so much to do... I just can's see how I could (in good conscience) vote for anyone who -- statistically speaking -- isn't likely to even finish the first four years.

All I'm trying to say is, we need a strong and HEALTHY president who will be able to "hit the ground running" and who will be able to CONTINUE to sprint the entire marathon distance. That is the candidate who will get my vote.

That's exactly as I suspected.

And everyone told me I was making-shit-up. From the very beginning, I knew this wasn't some simple "outpatient procedure". I knew something was up when he had that dizzy spell and fell in the hotel shower, busting his head open and needing stitches. There's a reason why they call coronary artery disease "the silent killer" (along with high blood pressure too... and the risk of strokes with no symptoms until it's too late... so keep an eye on your BP people!!!)

This is some serious and deadly business. Good to know that his doctors are taking it seriously... but it's a pity that his campaign was so cagey and stingy with the information that people deserved to know.

I watched that video with his current wife Jane and she was totally out of her element. She was saying positive words... but subconsciously shaking her head in a negative side-to-side gesture as she was saying them. When she had run through all the rehearsed talking points, she started to repeat herself. It was uncomfortable to watch. I kinda felt sorry for her for a second.

I'm just saying that anyone who hopes to be our party's nominee has given up the privacy expectations that ordinary citizens expect... whether medical or financial. It just comes with the territory... get used to it.

Also, since they're ONLY JUST-NOW admitting to us that he had a HEART ATTACK... I'm convinced that this could possibly and very likely be the "watered down" version of what really happened. It's an honest question, and people deserve honest answers.

The American voters DESERVE to know if the candidate they are being asked to consider nominating is actually healthy enough and strong enough for the VERY STRESSFUL job of President of the United States and Leader of the Free World.

A loved-one of mine died a couple of days following a "routine procedure" like this.

Whistling past the graveyard (if you'll pardon the expression) really does nothing to change the severity and seriousness of any invasive procedure like this. I know it's frightening, but the best way to deal with one's fear of what's dead ahead and unavoidable is to just admit it and to be brave (and informed) no matter how dreary things may appear to be.

It really serves no good purpose for anyone to try and deny that there's a serious underlying condition. It's obviously not just going to just go away magically when stents are inserted. Heart disease progresses slowly and cumulatively... there has been damage, we just don't know how much... but if it was enough to cause chest pains, and if it was enough to warrant this emergency procedure, then it must have been pretty damn serious.

Listen, all I'm trying to say is that there's a BIG difference between having a positive outlook and being in some sort of aggressive denial about things. Try to be brave.

You're correct about that.

The joke is that some people don't understand that.
You're correct about that. So in frustration and desperation, they attack the messenger while ignoring the facts that do not comport with the narrative to which many are emotionally attached and invested.

Fact of the matter is, BS will not be our party's nominee. The AA/POC voters are not with him (as we've seen so clearly) and without that support, he may as well go home. There can be no denying that AA/POC voters will be very important in choosing our party's nominee.

I mean... just consider this: BS can't even get AA/POC voters to attend a BS rally held at a BLACK church in a MAJORITY BLACK city.

Of course, I'm referring to his rally in North Charleston, SC not long ago. It 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. BS just doesn't connect with that community. The BS message just isn't resonating.

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. Everyone knows it.

These fundraising numbers are not the same as actual votes (which he cannot muster) and without them, he won't be our party's nominee. That's all I'm saying.

You are correct about that. Excellent description...

You are correct about that. Excellent description... it may ruffle some feathers but it's entirely factual. He doesn't have the temperament or demeanor that's needed to be the Leader of the Free World. Speech-making at college-town rallies is not the same as leading... nor is it a good yardstick to determine if someone possesses the qualities needed for leading a nation.

Nobody is saying that. But the candidates are making it very clear what their priorities are...

Because he does not like gay people? C'mon.
Nobody is saying that. But the candidates are making it very clear what their priorities are, and they are being given multiple opportunities to do so. These are fair observations, not accusations.

This is ridiculous. He was helping LGBTQ long long ago in his state.
It saddens me to see any politician with a perfunctory attitude about these things. I hate it when it's treated as just one more thing on a long "to-do" list... something to "get it over with" so that he (or she) won't have to bother with it again for as long as possible.

And even then, after it's done once, or said once, the politician and his (or her) followers can always point to that ONE TIME that he (or she) did, or said something in support of said-group.

Maybe it is all the bad things he says about gay people? WTF?
At this critical juncture, I think that it will be a mistake for any candidate to shun (or "not have time for'') our LGBTQ brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, children, parents and loved ones.

It's not like anyone is being accused of being a bigot or hating the community... but everyone IS correct in pointing out that this is a very clear indicator of what a candidate's priorities are and where the LGBTQ community (and its issues) fall in the candidate's order of importance.

I think it would be weak sauce if the sum-total of a candidate's LGBTQ advocacy and support be limited to his (or her) one time appearance at a Pride Event.

All I'm trying to say is that this really isn't a one-and-done kind of thing, is it?

BS can't even get AA and POC to attend a rally at a BLACK church in a MAJORITY BLACK city.

He also appears to have given up the idea of people of color voting for him.
BS can't even get AA and POC to attend a rally at a BLACK church in a MAJORITY BLACK city.

Remember his rally in North Charleston, SC not long ago? It 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. BS just doesn't connect with that community. The BS message just isn't resonating.

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.

What really pisses me off is when anyone LIES and smears and denigrates the Democratic party.

I'm watching people move from "anyone but trump" to anyone but the one who trashed my favorite. Biden people hating on Warren. Warren people hating on Biden. A bunch of those who could take the Senate using up resources and debate stage chasing a pipe dream. Democrats getting pissed at Democrats.
You know what's even worse than that? What really pisses me off is when anyone LIES and smears and denigrates the Democratic party.

Oh, I'm sure you've heard all the smears before... the ugly lies...

It's NOT TRUE that Democrats are "ideologically 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 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.

We can't win national elections whenever someone keeps repeating lies about the Democratic party... lies that discourage participation, volunteerism, support of our party's candidates, donating, canvassing, VOTING FOR DEMOCRATS!!!

Here's the bottom line when it comes to things like this: Negativity generates apathy. Apathy discourages voter turnout. Low voter turnout gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »