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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jackie Wilson Said

(4,176 posts)
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 11:57 AM Apr 2016

So you say you want a revolution? Alright.

Me too.

So exactly how did you want to go about that?

Will it be easier to do with a Democrat in the White House or a right wing republican?

Only two ways for it to work without Bernie, you elect Hillary and push her to the left, or you elect a republican who will blow up the society, government, absolutely everything and cause tremendous harm and death along the way.

Both ways will ultimately get you there, maybe.

So which one?


...............

35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So you say you want a revolution? Alright. (Original Post) Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 OP
If history teaches us anything it's that the Democratic left are a bunch of "fucking retards"* Human101948 Apr 2016 #1
So right wing republican, that is your path to the revolution if Bernie loses? Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #3
So Dead Brain Damaged Singer, we should just take what we're served and choke it down? Human101948 Apr 2016 #6
You call that flame bait? That makes sense that you would call my desire Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #10
Oh so innocent are ye... Human101948 Apr 2016 #13
She WONT be pushed left, for crying out loud, can we please stop with this meme. onecaliberal Apr 2016 #2
You didnt answer my question. Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #5
It won't happen with either. seattleite Apr 2016 #17
Slither? Sounds GOP to me. Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #18
Actually, just a left-winger who is fed up with this shit. seattleite Apr 2016 #21
Calling the likely Democratic Candidate names like that isnt someting a liberal does at Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #24
It's almost as if I'm capable of thinking critically and despising multiple people! seattleite Apr 2016 #25
Easier with someone not corrupt. Too bad that's not all the candidates... revbones Apr 2016 #4
Elect Bernie. Because there is no "push Clinton left", her staff just used a static noise machine to peacebird Apr 2016 #7
You didnt answer my question. Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #8
I did. It is elect Bernie. That is what I am working toward. BTW Hillary, never.gets.my.vote. Never. peacebird Apr 2016 #12
So you will choose the right wing republican if Bernie loses. Thanks for answering Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #15
Bull hockey. I will vote, you will vote. If your candidate fails because she can't convince voters peacebird Apr 2016 #19
sounds like you are asking permission. Hiraeth Apr 2016 #9
Which path if Bernie loses do you choose? Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #11
I will write him in. peacebird Apr 2016 #14
That may actually work Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #16
LOL! Nope, as I said above. If your candidate gets the nom and fails to convince enough voters peacebird Apr 2016 #22
Nope? Nah, you are saying YES to right wing White House if you dont get your way. Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #26
Because I want a president who is not a habitual liar? Not a corporatist who sells out the 99%. peacebird Apr 2016 #29
Uh, other than Bernie (remember, I am a Bernie voter) can you name someone who can Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #30
Your whole OP is based on Bernie not winning. I call bullhockey - I do not take loyalty oaths peacebird Apr 2016 #31
Of course it is based on IF he loses... Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #32
I am a solid progressive liberal who has voted D for 40 years. We do not need to pick this up later peacebird Apr 2016 #33
Amazing Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #34
fuck a bunch of IF. Go BIG or go home. Hiraeth Apr 2016 #20
Your posed dilemma is false. Admiral Loinpresser Apr 2016 #23
I actually may agree with the following line Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #27
I can and have made many other arguments. Admiral Loinpresser Apr 2016 #35
absolutely! my deal colonel, nt Zephyrbag Apr 2016 #28
 

Human101948

(3,457 posts)
1. If history teaches us anything it's that the Democratic left are a bunch of "fucking retards"*
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 11:59 AM
Apr 2016

if they expect to get anything out of a nother Clinton White House.

*Rahm Emmanuel on being pressured by the left (AKA Real Democrats)

Jackie Wilson Said

(4,176 posts)
3. So right wing republican, that is your path to the revolution if Bernie loses?
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:00 PM
Apr 2016

Just curious, thanks for admitting that, maybe others can too.

 

Human101948

(3,457 posts)
6. So Dead Brain Damaged Singer, we should just take what we're served and choke it down?
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:02 PM
Apr 2016

What is your proposal? All I see is some flame bait in the OP.

Jackie Wilson Said

(4,176 posts)
10. You call that flame bait? That makes sense that you would call my desire
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:04 PM
Apr 2016

to try and reason with Bernie or Bust people, sincerely reason with them, flame bait.

Actually tells me volumes.

 

Human101948

(3,457 posts)
13. Oh so innocent are ye...
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:06 PM
Apr 2016

Feigning ignorance is an effective tactic that manipulates the person confronting the behavior into having doubts about the legitimacy of the issue they’re trying to bring to the other person’s attention.

http://counsellingresource.com/features/2009/03/10/manipulation-by-acting-dumb/

onecaliberal

(34,248 posts)
2. She WONT be pushed left, for crying out loud, can we please stop with this meme.
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 11:59 AM
Apr 2016

Look at her donor list, which one of those has been donating millions out of the goodness of their hearts?

 

seattleite

(79 posts)
17. It won't happen with either.
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:07 PM
Apr 2016

There. There's your answer. Hillary will slither around and say whatever she needs to say to get in office. If she gets in office, her puppeteers giving her huge sums of money will make sure that there is NO substantial change. You take their money? You are complicit in this mess.

Vote them out. Vote them ALL out.

 

seattleite

(79 posts)
21. Actually, just a left-winger who is fed up with this shit.
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:11 PM
Apr 2016

But keep trolling and smearing me, and people like me, and see where that gets you. Have a nice day.

Jackie Wilson Said

(4,176 posts)
24. Calling the likely Democratic Candidate names like that isnt someting a liberal does at
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:12 PM
Apr 2016

a time like this.

As much as I despise most politicians, Clinton's included, I know the difference between the GOP and the Clinton's

Why dont you?

 

seattleite

(79 posts)
25. It's almost as if I'm capable of thinking critically and despising multiple people!
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:13 PM
Apr 2016

Edit: spare me the concern trolling. Not interested. Again, have a nice day.

 

revbones

(3,660 posts)
4. Easier with someone not corrupt. Too bad that's not all the candidates...
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:00 PM
Apr 2016

And the whole pushing to the left? Not going to happen for Hillary.

peacebird

(14,195 posts)
7. Elect Bernie. Because there is no "push Clinton left", her staff just used a static noise machine to
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:02 PM
Apr 2016

Prevent reporters from hearing her promises to her wealthy donor/owners last night. What does she promise them? Why not let the people hear it?

Jackie Wilson Said

(4,176 posts)
15. So you will choose the right wing republican if Bernie loses. Thanks for answering
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:07 PM
Apr 2016

It might actually lead to a revolution sooner.

Millions will be harmed tremendously.

peacebird

(14,195 posts)
19. Bull hockey. I will vote, you will vote. If your candidate fails because she can't convince voters
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:09 PM
Apr 2016

to support her, that is on HER. She has HUGE unfavorables, polls worse against either R than Bernie, so if she gets the nom and loses, well that's on little Debbie Downer and Camp Weathervane.

Jackie Wilson Said

(4,176 posts)
16. That may actually work
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:07 PM
Apr 2016

So you will choose the right wing republican if Bernie loses. Thanks for answering

It might actually lead to a revolution sooner.

Millions will be harmed tremendously.

Many will die, many more will suffer horribly, but it might work!

Just the repeal of ACA alone will kill plenty.

peacebird

(14,195 posts)
22. LOL! Nope, as I said above. If your candidate gets the nom and fails to convince enough voters
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:11 PM
Apr 2016

to vote for her, that is totally on Camp Weathervane and Hillary.

Jackie Wilson Said

(4,176 posts)
26. Nope? Nah, you are saying YES to right wing White House if you dont get your way.
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:14 PM
Apr 2016

I cant get over it, myself, I truly dont know how anyone can claim to be a liberal and take such a shortsighted and selfish position, I honest to god dont.

peacebird

(14,195 posts)
29. Because I want a president who is not a habitual liar? Not a corporatist who sells out the 99%.
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:19 PM
Apr 2016

Because I feel HillaryInc is corrupt, she treated national security with appalling carelessness, and has zero judgement as evidenced by her actions in senate then as SecState (Hondouras, Libya, Syria, IWR)

Oh, and her morphing into Sanders on SNL was really funny, but sadly also accurate. As evidenced by her refusal to hand out her transcripts AND her staff aiming a static machine at reporters last night so they couldn't hear what she was promising to her big dollar donors/owners.

Jackie Wilson Said

(4,176 posts)
30. Uh, other than Bernie (remember, I am a Bernie voter) can you name someone who can
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:22 PM
Apr 2016

be elected who isnt a liar and corrupt?

Nope, you CAN'T

Why? Because we are a very fucked up and corrupt system, we are probably the best on the planet, but we are woefully fucked up.

You do NOT have a choice of that person once Bernie loses IF he loses, do you!

What do you not get about this?

peacebird

(14,195 posts)
31. Your whole OP is based on Bernie not winning. I call bullhockey - I do not take loyalty oaths
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:25 PM
Apr 2016

From either Hillary supporters or so called Bernie supporters asking me to swear fealty to Hillary after Bernie loses!

Jackie Wilson Said

(4,176 posts)
32. Of course it is based on IF he loses...
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:26 PM
Apr 2016

So called Bernie voter?

OK, let's do it this way, as you do seem to be sincere, you might actually be a sincere liberal.

Let's both vote for Bernie and continue to work toward him being elected and then after the nominee is picked we pick this up again if necessary.

peacebird

(14,195 posts)
33. I am a solid progressive liberal who has voted D for 40 years. We do not need to pick this up later
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:28 PM
Apr 2016

IF Bernie does not win, everything I have said still stands. I will never.ever.vote.Hillary.

Hiraeth

(4,805 posts)
20. fuck a bunch of IF. Go BIG or go home.
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:10 PM
Apr 2016

I will always take the road less traveled.

The Road Less Traveled
The Road Less Traveled,[6] published in 1978, is Peck's best-known work, and the one that made his reputation. It is, in short, a description of the attributes that make for a fulfilled human being, based largely on his experiences as a psychiatrist and a person.

The book consists of four parts. In the first part Peck examines the notion of discipline, which he considers essential for emotional, spiritual, and psychological health, and which he describes as "the means of spiritual evolution". The elements of discipline that make for such health include the ability to delay gratification, accepting responsibility for oneself and one's actions, a dedication to truth, and "balancing". "Balancing" refers to the problem of reconciling multiple, complex, possibly conflicting factors that impact on an important decision—on one's own behalf or on behalf of another.

In the second part, Peck addresses the nature of love, which he considers the driving force behind spiritual growth. He contrasts his own views on the nature of love against a number of common misconceptions about love, including:
that love is identified with romantic love (he considers it a very destructive myth when it is solely relying on "feeling in love&quot ,
that love is related to dependency,
that true love is linked with the feeling of "falling in love".

Peck argues that "true" love is rather an action that one undertakes consciously in order to extend one's ego boundaries by including others or humanity, and is therefore the spiritual nurturing—which can be directed toward oneself, as well as toward one's beloved.

In the third part Peck deals with religion, and the commonly accepted views and misconceptions concerning religion. He recounts experiences from several patient case histories, and the evolution of the patients' notion of God, religion, atheism—especially of their own "religiosity" or atheism—as their therapy with Peck progressed.

The fourth and final part concerns "grace", the powerful force originating outside human consciousness that nurtures spiritual growth in human beings. In order to focus on the topic, he describes the miracles of health, the unconscious, and serendipity—phenomena which Peck says:
nurture human life and spiritual growth,
are incompletely understood by scientific thinking,
are commonplace among humanity,
originate outside the conscious human will.

He concludes that "the miracles described indicate that our growth as human beings is being assisted by a force other than our conscious will" (Peck, 1978/1992,[6] p281).

Random House, where the then little-known psychiatrist first tried to publish his original manuscript, turned him down, saying the final section was "too Christ-y." Thereafter, Simon & Schuster published the work for $7,500 and printed a modest hardback run of 5,000 copies. The book took off only after Peck hit the lecture circuit and personally sought reviews in key publications. Later reprinted in paperback in 1980, The Road first made best-seller lists in 1984 – six years after its initial publication.[5]


more at link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck

Admiral Loinpresser

(3,859 posts)
23. Your posed dilemma is false.
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:12 PM
Apr 2016

Only one candidate offers the hope of a political revolution. His name is Bernie. Annie Oakley offers almost no hope of a political revolution, just more failed Third Way policies and Goldman Sachs appointees. Also no social or economic justice. Worldwide fracking. Not to mention a PNAC perpetual war/regime change foreign policy. I have not voted for a Clintonite in decades and I never will again. Revolution NOT. And I don't say this lightly: a Clinton foreign policy could be more dangerous than a Trump foreign policy.

Jackie Wilson Said

(4,176 posts)
27. I actually may agree with the following line
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:16 PM
Apr 2016
a Clinton foreign policy could be more dangerous than a Trump foreign policy.


Assuming he does what I assume he will do, bow out of it and rely on established, mainstream advisers who may lean toward less intervention.

But on everything else the differences are so wildly different there is no argument you can make other than if you dont get your way, etc.

Admiral Loinpresser

(3,859 posts)
35. I can and have made many other arguments.
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:39 PM
Apr 2016

Some are implied in my response immediately above. Hillary is a proven liar and flip flopper over the decades. Bernie has consistent, credible positions on behalf of the 99%. But you are correct that our differences are wildly different. Btw, it's not about me but us. If the best candidate wins we will have a revolution. If not more of the same policies which have been mostly failing for the last 35 years. It's time for the pendulum to swing back from Reaganism.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»So you say you want a rev...