2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSo 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?
...............
Human101948
(3,457 posts)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)Just curious, thanks for admitting that, maybe others can too.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)What is your proposal? All I see is some flame bait in the OP.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)to try and reason with Bernie or Bust people, sincerely reason with them, flame bait.
Actually tells me volumes.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Feigning ignorance is an effective tactic that manipulates the person confronting the behavior into having doubts about the legitimacy of the issue theyre trying to bring to the other persons attention.
http://counsellingresource.com/features/2009/03/10/manipulation-by-acting-dumb/
onecaliberal
(32,852 posts)Look at her donor list, which one of those has been donating millions out of the goodness of their hearts?
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)seattleite
(79 posts)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.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)seattleite
(79 posts)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)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)Edit: spare me the concern trolling. Not interested. Again, have a nice day.
revbones
(3,660 posts)And the whole pushing to the left? Not going to happen for Hillary.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)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)peacebird
(14,195 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)It might actually lead to a revolution sooner.
Millions will be harmed tremendously.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)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.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)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)to vote for her, that is totally on Camp Weathervane and Hillary.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)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)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)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)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)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)IF Bernie does not win, everything I have said still stands. I will never.ever.vote.Hillary.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)I will always take 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 decisionon 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" ,
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 nurturingwhich 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, atheismespecially of their own "religiosity" or atheismas 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 serendipityphenomena 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)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)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)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.