I don’t know about all that. Sander’s and to some extent Trump’s supporters are right in attacking the establishment to the degree they do. They want change and this is one mechanism of enacting change. Will it be counterproductive? That’s only knowable in retrospect.
Now I think Sanders is a goddamn nut and his economic policies are clear lunacy but the methodology of his supporters may swing the pendulum in the direction they like.
I read an editorial/comment on TPM today that equated this idea with comic book reboots. Who cares if you fuck up Superman? You can just restart from whatever point you want!
Though Nader was the Green Party’s nominee in 1992, he was not actually a member – he pointed that out to me at a public event that year. (The Pubs and Dems have no “members” as such, but some third parties do.)
A revolution is not analogous to an iceberg in that situation, it is analogous to a mutiny. The same question applies, of course.
You’re still not quite getting the part where one of them *will *become President.
It depends on what kinds of changes you’re seeking.
Are you looking to keep essentially the same system but change some policies in that system? Then fine, go ahead and run for political office.
Are you opposing the system itself? Then you need to gather your followers together and start building up a revolutionary band. The system won’t kill itself; you can’t abolish it from the inside. You’re going to have to overthrow the system from the outside. Or at least declare independence and start up your own country with your new system.
If you decide not to vote, you’re telling both candidates they can safely ignore you and your beliefs.
And so is Bernie. You know why? Because he HAS NO FUCKING SUPPORT ANYWHERE IN THE US POLITICAL STRUCTURE. He doesn’t have any Governors, Reps, or Senators that feel like they owe him shit and they won’t risk their jobs for stuff he wants.
Like it or not, that’s the reality. If Bernie wants a fucking revolution, he needs to get people that like the same things he likes elected to (lower) office. Otherwise, it’s just a cult of personality and he will be almost powerless in the White House. He won’t get anything passed, he won’t get anybody nominated, and he won’t be able to do anything that the next President can’t undo with the stroke of a pen on his/her first day in office.
Those in favor of a revolution should remember that the Republicans are the ones with all the guns.
Eh, let’s read “revolution” charitably. Once the masses wake up from their false consciousness the 1% will have their hearts grow 3 sizes and so we won’t need guns and bombs and stuff, man.
Grin! You should visit California! I know plenty of liberal Democrats who have guns…often plural!
Look how Hitlery is turning us against each other!! 
Conservatives should remember those millenias they deride make up more than half of our armed forces. Members of the armed forces tend to be armed too and are statistically better at hitting what they aim for.
I’m going to say that the reason that we got 8 years of Bush is due to the approximately 230 million people who didn’t vote for another candidate. Why do the 182 million non voters get a free pass? Fact is, the parties want to claim that these 182 million people support their cause when they don’t support anything enough to vote for it. One things for sure, the vast majorities of Americans didn’t find a Bush administration worth voting against. Twice. That’s the truth. Make voting mandatory then you can blame people for who they voted for. The fact is neither party has the majority of the country’s support. At best they have their acceptance.
Frankly, I have no sympathy for these non voting people anymore. I’m not about to dedicate my vote to “saving” them from their apathy. That’s why I can understand voting for the worst candidate. Enough of that is going to be the only thing that’s going to break through the apathy that grips the majority. If it doesn’t then again, why bother to save them?
On your list, I meet one criteria. I am a US citizen. I can endure the privations of a Trump presidency better than many Americans though, I’d imagine. There are so many around the world living far worse realities. If these people can endure what they have to it’s insulting to think I can’t endure a downturn here. Even if this is false, again, why does the majority of the country get a pass here? They sure seem to disagree with you where it counts the voting booth.
Finally, I’m not necessarily going to vote Trump. I’ve considered it because it would be the most entertaining option which is the one thing that would benefit me. Seeing the status quo continue isn’t entertaining. It’s depressing.
Hardtack and sea monkeys for everyone.
I always wanted sea monkeys and was never allowed to have them when I was a kid. I fully support brine shrimp for everyone. Finally, an idea I can vote FOR.
Right, and no one is more revolutionary than someone who’s volunteered for military service for their country.:dubious:
And, if you fancy yourself too pure to simply vote for the lesser evil, you merely make it easier for the *greater *evil to win.
Is there any question in your mind as to which is which?
I’d say rather it merely makes you a part of the majority of the country. Full stop. Most people simply don’t think one side is all that much more evil than the other. Those are the people you should look at and ask why they don’t vote and give them a compelling reason to do so. Seems it would be more productive than shaming someone normally engaged in the process not supporting your candidate.
To parapharase a politician, when your choice is being shot or being poision you’re going to go after those who don’t make a choice?
Because there are a lot more people who think that the choice is more like being shot or drinking cod liver oil, at worst, and you’re telling them that if they get shot, there’s a chance that they’ll be operated on and become bionic sometime in the next decade after a series of painful surgeries without anesthesia.