Is a call for revolution realistic, or just a temper tantrum?

[Cyrano]

If this year's election is stolen, as were the last three (IMO), few would disagree that it's time for a second American revolution against our modern day King George and his mob.

But what does that mean? Armed insurgency? The government controls the military, the police, and the most deadly arsenal in the history of the world. Added to which, there would be no outside help from any country in the world. A violent revolution would therefore turn into a meaningless exercise in mass suicide.

I've often seen calls for revolution discussed often on DU. Yet, unless someone can come up with a peaceful means of ridding ourselves of the scum running our country, such talk is nothing more than a passing temper tantrum.

So rather than telling me how I'm "giving up" or "being negative" or "giving comfort to enemy freepers" or ranting about what a coward I am, let's hear your realistic response and solution to the theft and murder of our democracy.

[murray hill farm]

1. the detention camps are being built...

and should be ready in time for the revolt..no problem...just planning ahead for the likes of you..and others who might have the same idea.

[Cyrano]

5. I don't follow you. What idea? I'm asking a question. Read it again.

[murray hill farm]

12. i should have added "sarcasm" to my post..sorry.

I do understand your question..and that it was a question and not a suggestion. Will there be a revolt or a revolution...no there will not...and seriously, the detention camps are for that purpose...to put one down if it should occur...and may, on a limited basis if things continue to go as they are going with our country. But would there be a large revolution..no, there will not be....we are a country of spoiled and soft and pampered people...and, at large, we will protect our status quo by sticking our heads in the sand as long as possible and, like the citizens of nazi germany did so many years ago, pretend things are fine...and proceeding normally.

[Neil Lisst]

2. please tell me you're not serious!

We have a political process, and when we prevail, we'll prevail.

You are endangering yourself and any who foolishly follow your example by suggesting any illegality or violence.

[Cyrano]

4. Read it again, Neil Lisst. There's no call for illegality or violence.

[Neil Lisst]

9. Tell yourself that.

When is a question a statement?

When is a question an exhortation?

Your comments invite others to discuss what plans, if any, they might have to engage in truly illegal acts if they don't win the next election. At a minimum, you're placing others at DU at risk if they respond to you with humor, or an over the top rant.

I know you think you've constructed your post so that you can cling to a rationalization of your role, but it won't sell. It's transparent.

Posters who invite others to engage in such talk are no friend to progressive causes.

[Cyrano]

11. Believe what you will. I'm searching for a solution, not a debate.

[atreides1]

13. It's an honest question

Which political process are you referring too, the one where the DIEBOLD machines are used to count the votes, perhaps the political process of the 2000 election where the SCOTUS took the decision away from the Florida courts and stopped the recount.

Now we can see what happens with these mid-term elections, and if done fairly and above board, there
might be a chance for real change, if not, then things will remain the same.

As for the use of violence, only as last resort.

Let me leave you with the words of the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

[rogerashton]

3. Nonviolent direct action

Has been successful, e.g. in Germany against the Kapp Putsch. A general strike could remove this government.

However, it is hard to imagine Americans carrying out a general strike, and not only because we are so ignorant of nonviolence. There is also the problem of herding cats.

[Double T]

6. Our current government is totally dysfunctional and absolutely corrupt....

It is time to call for and form a NEW CONTINENTAL CONGRESS to right the wrongs our current inept and incompetent government.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. It's too bad that we don't control enough states to demand a

Constitutional Convention.

[EstimatedProphet]

8. I'm not calling for revolution

But I want to examine an assumption you're making:

The government controls the military, the police, and the most deadly arsenal in the history of the world.
Has ther ever been a revolution where the government didn't control the army and the police? Armies and police may throw down their weapons when they realize that the revolutionaries are the ones on their side. And the very deadly arsenal wouldn't be used, because it would destroy the government as well-there's no way even this bunch would use nukes on the US even under revolt, because it would destroy them too.

Added to which, there would be no outside help from any country in the world.
How do you know? This government has made a lot of enemies around the globe.

[Cyrano]

10. I like your assumptions. If they came about, our problems would be solved.