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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Is the (D) behind the name more important than the voting record? [View all]NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)206. Well...
Offensive to who? To me and others who share my views on this. Fake outrage?
So you're offended that someone feels differently than you do? You're offended that someone dislikes your favorite politician? You're offended that someone puts party above celebrity? Wow! That's a lot of "being offended" there. It must be hard work. How do you manage?
-- or its just a convenient way to discount the message and, ultimately, those who support it without actually discounting it.
I and many others have plainly stated that the same (ahem) "advice" and direction coming from politicians who were actual party members would carry more weight.
Dishing and smearing and criticizing is the easy party... especially from the sidelines (to use a sports metaphor). It's like listening to an "armchair quarterback" or having to listen to some older/retired former player during the post-game show droning on and on and on about what the ACTUAL coach and the ACTUAL players needed to do instead.
Non-Democrats who refuse to join, but who behave as you describe, are snubbing the party that I love and to which I'm loyal. When people do that, I just can't take them seriously. I question their motives.
In my view, to discount him and his message on that basis is either exactly what it appears to be -- discounting the message for the messenger
No. That's wrong. I'm "discounting the message" because of the behavior of the messenger and the outward indicators that they lack sincerity or commitment. I guess there will always be people who feel victimized for no good reason.
Take issue with Bernie's positions on the Party if you want. I can accept that. You are right
In my personal life, I'm not into open marriages or polygamy. It would be unsettling and difficult to trust or depend on someone who will come-and-go as they please, on a whim, carousing and canoodling with whoever they happen to fancy. I've always believed that making a sincere commitment, one that's public and official, is important. It shows character an sincerity. I think it's important to have high standards. I've always regarded people who flit around and who wander in-and-out as it suits THEIR needs (without regard for any others in the relationship) as being selfish and unreliable. And, continuing with the analogy of family-relationships, I think it's safe to assume that most intelligent parents are not going to accept child-rearing advice from meddling strangers in the grocery store checkout. What's their compelling interest? What's their demonstrable "stake" in the well-being of someone else's children? And even within the family itself, people need to know their place and proceed with tact and caution. (Just ask any nosy busy-body know-it-all Mother-in-Law who has attempted to give "advice" the daughter-in-law on child-rearing and on how to be a "good wife" ... and she'll tell you what it's like to be rebuffed and ignored. She is "technically" a family member, yet that type of tactless and rudely presented "advice" is unwelcome. Gee. I wonder why. Hmmm.)
Now, politically (but hypothetically) speaking, I personally would distrust anyone who spends an inordinate amount of effort in snubbing our party but won't take a moment to officially commit. Absent any obvious reasons, I would find that type of behavior disturbing and puzzling and frankly, in my opinion, suspicious. These are my opinions, but if there was a politician wouldn't commit to our great party, then there would be no good reason for me to commit to him or her in return. My opinion on this matter would remain the same no matter what his or her voting record may be, and no matter how many (or how few) bills he or she has actually passed.
So, again, hypothetically speaking, in a situation like that...there's no compelling reason for me to give more weight or respect to his or her criticism and "advice" than I'd give to a stranger on the street.
Democrats First! Family First!
-----
Hello, alerter! These are my opinions and my analogies to explain my opinions. None of these opinions break any rules. My loyalty to the party is not against the rules.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
238 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
A (D) behind the name means it counts when determining the Majority Party. That's important.
SharonAnn
Feb 2017
#126
If one wants to have a say in party politics and how it is run and control aspects of it....
boston bean
Feb 2017
#2
No that means he caucuses with the Democrats...you can't be a member unless you join.
Demsrule86
Feb 2017
#20
It's not a label. It's a membership. Damn he should just join... but he won't, why?
boston bean
Feb 2017
#94
I am talking about Sanders, but this is applicable to Kshama Sawant and others
guillaumeb
Feb 2017
#180
Your example is fine for a state such as Vermont, or New York, or California, but
still_one
Feb 2017
#6
It used to be blue...then more purple ...we are lucky to get Manchin...and he is endangered...
Demsrule86
Feb 2017
#25
When is comes to party matters, yes. Sanders, by his own choice, is an Independent.
SaschaHM
Feb 2017
#15
His voting record is one of supporting Democratic Party positions 90+% of the time.
guillaumeb
Feb 2017
#99
It is an organization with members who decide to join and those who don't are not Democrats.
Demsrule86
Feb 2017
#44
The "D" is a rough, mostly reliabe, guide. Rule: Just about any Dem is better than any Repuke.
UTUSN
Feb 2017
#45
True, and working with like minded political colleagues to get things done. eom
guillaumeb
Feb 2017
#58
True, but that is because there are no sane GOP politicians in Congress. eom
guillaumeb
Feb 2017
#59
It doesn't give someone Carte Blanche to run roughshod and start calling the shots...
NurseJackie
Feb 2017
#109
Huh? Co-chair? WTF?! There's NO SUCH THING as "co-chair" ... they are NOT equals.
NurseJackie
Feb 2017
#124
There's no such thing as the "Sanders Wing". They're either Democrats or not...
NurseJackie
Feb 2017
#133
I believe that's called a strawman argument. I've never said or suggested such a thing ...
NurseJackie
Feb 2017
#138
This isn't about me. And, the #2 slot is a consolation prize of little authority.
NurseJackie
Feb 2017
#216
Let us really simplify the issue here: The Democrats are losing the battle.
guillaumeb
Feb 2017
#219
Really? How so? To what other parties should I consider giving control of the Democratic party?
NurseJackie
Feb 2017
#144
I'll take you at your word that you are a "lifelong Democrat" ... and therefore
NurseJackie
Feb 2017
#156
You conveniently ignored my implied admission that "offended" was perhaps an inaccurate
KPN
Feb 2017
#221
To regain the majority, the "D is more important. Yes, someties I'd like to see the Dems vote in
napi21
Feb 2017
#79
Nope, it doesn't. It's actually weaker than the symbolic act of not joining. Because it influences
stevenleser
Feb 2017
#92
And that response is indicative you have no counter, so its an acknowledgement that I'm right. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2017
#101
Thread after thread stating essentially that we should like Sanders. We don't.
randome
Feb 2017
#123
Just checking ... You do understand that they are not "co-chairs", right? You kinda ...
NurseJackie
Feb 2017
#148
The voting totals were quite close. Indicating that the Party is supportive of both.
guillaumeb
Feb 2017
#167
It wasn't that close. The same proportions in a national election would be ...
NurseJackie
Feb 2017
#181
The D behind the names shows investment in a political party one we have all signed up at DU
La Lioness Priyanka
Feb 2017
#157
no one is arguing that Sanders is not liberal. what we are arguing is whether he furthers
La Lioness Priyanka
Feb 2017
#166
Agreed. I am not defending everything that Sanders says, or everything that any
guillaumeb
Feb 2017
#168
And I also. I respect your positions, and your (generally) polite style. eom
guillaumeb
Feb 2017
#170
i dunno about the polite. i have been raging quite a bit since the election
La Lioness Priyanka
Feb 2017
#172
Call me when Vermont and W. Va. become ideologically equivalent. Until then, it doesn't....
Tarheel_Dem
Feb 2017
#177
Oh yeah, the "maple sugar" lobby in DC is huge & they have buckets of money to throw at our....
Tarheel_Dem
Feb 2017
#198
Your end point might be a valid one if Sanders were criticizing a winning strategy.
guillaumeb
Feb 2017
#186
It might be relevant but to discuss it would then involve the various claims
guillaumeb
Feb 2017
#207
If Sanders had the W VA electorate he'd be voting more like Manchin or he'd be gone.
delisen
Feb 2017
#205
If we're going for a "Fifty State" strategy, we have to consider the (D) for some states.
moriah
Feb 2017
#214
Overall and almost always, yes. All D's are much better than all R's across the board. nt.
NCTraveler
Feb 2017
#218