Revolution? The United States Has One Every Two Years.

[MineralMan]

If you want to participate in a revolution, you have an opportunity to do so at two year intervals. In that revolution, you can completely overthrow one half of the current legislative government, replacing it with one of your choosing. No shots need to be fired. Nobody needs to lose his or her life. You can also replace a third of the other half of the legislature. Then, every four years, you can throw out the current executive and replace him or her, as well. Generally, you can do the same in your own state. Our Constitution has regular revolutionary potential designed right into it.

Whether you participate or not in this revolution, others will. They'll select the people they want in government. Sometimes the change is dramatic; other times it is subtle or non-existent. So, if a revolution is what you seek, the front lines are forming right now for the next one. In your precinct, your congressional district, your state, and all across the country, citizens are arming themselves with information and preparing to convince others to join them.

You can be part of this revolution and bring dramatic change to your own local government, state government, and federal government. It's easy. Call your local Democratic political organization and ask them how you can enlist in the Revolutionary War of 2012. Join up and participate in the fight to create a just, peaceful, progressive society.

America needs you! Be part of the change! Start now!

[MadHound]

1. Really? Seriously? You call that a revolution

:rofl:

[MineralMan]

2. I do, yes. What do you call it?

Laugh, if you wish. The other side isn't laughing.

[MadHound]

4. It is called an election, not a revolution

Elections change the cast in the play. A revolution changes the cast, strikes the scenery and takes it all to a new venue where it is lead by a new director.

[MineralMan]

7. So, when does your Revolution begin? Will you be on the front

lines? I doubt that very much. Have a nice day, now.

[MadHound]

9. So you're advocating for a revolution now,

But wanting others to man the barricades instead of yourself. Typical. Let me guess, you haven't been out on the streets since the seventies have you.

I was out on the streets last week. Hmmm.

[MineralMan]

13. I advocated for a revolution in the OP, MadHound.

And I already am on the front lines of that revolution. The streets? I spent two months on the streets of my precinct, talking to individual voters. Guess what? We turned out 60% of the voters in that precinct in 2010. Now that's only 5% better than the statewide turnout, but it made a difference. Every Democratic candidate won with a 60% margin. All are progressives, chosen through the local caucuses and conventions, in which I participated.

See the DFL precinct website at the link in my signature line. I'm the chair.

No, I'm on the streets and in the front lines of the revolution I'm speaking of.

[MadHound]

17. But what you are participating in is an election, a lawful event

Revolutions tend to bend, if not break, the current legal system.

[MineralMan]

18. Your kind of revolution also leads to hundreds of thousands of

dead people. That's why we have the system we have. We just don't use it as it was intended. We can. Have fun with your fantasy revolution. It will not take place. The election will. See ya.

[saras]

60. That's a trivially low number of dead compared to the results of our system - let's get moving.

[blindpig]

11. Really...

That's a pretty low bar.

More like re-arranging the furniture, when the great majority are beholden to greater economic interests.

[MineralMan]

14. Not where I am, they're not. Each candidate on my ballot

was a solid progressive. Al Franken. Betty McCollum. State Legislators. They were nominated and supported through the caucus and convention system in this state, by those who participated, like me. Tell me what you don't like about either of those two. I'll be waiting impatiently.

[blindpig]

36. They're not Marxists

:7

[MineralMan]

49. Marxists are unelectable. You'll need a different country if you

want a Marxist government. Sorry.

[blindpig]

56. The country will change.

Current politics make that inevitable.

It's self defense, ya know.

[socialist_n_TN]

59. Yep.........

The best recruiters for Marxism are the capitalists.

[newfie11]

3. true for some states

but here in NE the idiots listen to fox news or nothing, read local paper which is slanted for repugs. Ears close when they are told the truth.

My only hope is there are enough other states to elect a congress that is not bought off by corporations.

[MineralMan]

8. Perhaps your neighbors will listen to you.

It's worth a shot, don't you think? You also have a voice.

[newfie11]

43. Oh believe me I have tried.

Everything is all Obamas fault. Most will not listen and get mad if you try to discuss it further. Others just blow you off.

[MineralMan]

53. Are you doing that in an organized way or just talking to people

you run into? It makes a big difference. Precinct walking will expose you to far more people than just casual conversations, and you'll have literature, answers to questions, and a specific goal. It works great. Not only do you get to present your case, but you also get to encourage people to actually go to the polls and vote. The latter thing is the one that really makes a difference on election day. Changing people's minds isn't easy, but getting people to act on their political beliefs isn't so difficult. If we got every Democrat to show up and vote, even in Nebraska, you'd be amazed at the difference it would make. It's also a great time to get people registered to vote. In my precinct in 2010, I got over 100 people to register, and they voted, too.

It's a lot of work, but it's worth it.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. When candidates lie about what they'll do in office, we are thwarted

That's the biggest problem today.

[MineralMan]

10. Find new candidates, then. That's why the process begins

now, not a month before the elections. Your voice, added to other voices, speaks loudly, if you use it where it matters.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shandris]

22. So it's not a revolution, it's a craps game where your lucky call when rolling...

...the dice is 'Oh please God let this group of people be and stay honest...shit, crapped out again.'

[Autumn]

28. You know what?

I think I really like you.:spray:

[theophilus]

25. Exactly. Then when they're in it takes years to get them out. Much

damage can be done in a very short time. That's why I wish we had a "recall" option on everyone. It would require a high percentage but when the electorate is lied to and betrayed we need to be able to throw the bum out ASAP, imo.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. K&R

:applause:

[Modern_Matthew]

12. Naive. nt

[MineralMan]

15. Am I? Do you liike Al Franken. Do you know Betty McCollum?

Think about it.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. My Senators are Wyden and Merkely, my Rep is DeFazio

Additionally, my State did not shut down due to radical Republicans allowed into office. And here, we know what an election is, and what a revolution is, and the difference between them. Because we have access to dictionaries. And we use them.
Think about it.

[Autumn]

16. We got to be part of the change in 2008 and again in 2010

It sure as shit wasn't a revolution. And 2012 will be more of the same, it won't be a revolution either.

[MineralMan]

19. Suit yourself, there, Autumn. Do as you please.

Your smoke dream revolution will not take place. The election will. You choose.

[Autumn]

20. But see, I don't want a revolution, I have no smoke dreams

about a revolution. Every two years I vote in election,I have always voted for a Democrat and will continue to do so. But now I will be much more selective on which Democrat gets my vote. I will not vote for the lessor of two evils and more of the same.

[Shandris]

24. Don't you understand, Autumn?

Disagreeing with elections solving every little problem in the Republic clearly means that you have deep fantasies nightly about rushing out, flags streaming, like it was the Battle of Antietam. It's so obvious.

:sarcasm:

[Autumn]

26. Silly me. How on earth could I

have missed those deep seated feelings I have kept hidden. Here I thought that the problem is "who gets" to be elected VS "who we need" to be elected.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. All that is being said to you is that an election is not a revolution

Which everyone knows. To suggest that by saying that, one is advocating 'smoke dream revolution' is rude, absurd, and nonsensical. A huge, personal attack and assumption based on willful misunderstanding of what was written, not a big surprise considering your definitions of the words of our language are improvised according to your agenda, rather than being the actual definitions we all agree upon, which are available in dictionary form, even on the internet. Words have meanings. An election is not a revolution, nor is a revolution an election. To state that fact is not to advocate for anything, unless the dictionary is advocating for each thing it defines.

[theophilus]

23. The meanings of words are important.

:rofl:

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Definitions:

Revolution:
a : a sudden, radical, or complete change b : a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed.

Election:
a : an act or process of electing <the election of a new governor> b : the fact of being elected <her election to the Senate>

[JayhawkSD]

27. With 90% reelection rates

40% participation, and the amount of money spent, what we do are most certainly not revolutions. They barely qualify as elections.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

39. "That one is going yard, Bob!"

:thumbsup:

[JoePhilly]

29. Are you crazy? Asking people to vote? That's nuts.

The revolution will be won right here, from the safety and comfort of the keyboard.

[socialist_n_TN]

51. I was out yesterday in the heat

along with about 60 of my comrades at Corker and Alexander's offices. Singing songs and carrying signs to quote Stephen Stills. I recently early voted in the Mayoral/Council races AND I've voted in every election since I have been eligible. EVEN THOUGH I DON'T THINK IT DOES ANY GOOD. Even with a "progressive" on the ballot, I'm STILL voting for a corporate candidate.

What did you do yesterday? Not all of us only use keyboards.

[LiberalFighter]

31. I don't know where you got your 1/2 from.

From both chambers we have the chance to replace up to about 88% every two years.

[treestar]

34. Agreed, and that is why I think term limits are wrong

We can vote them out in that short interval, no one forces us to vote for the incumbent - we're just not paying attention.

[TBF]

35. I'd suggest investing in a dictionary. nt

[mmonk]

37. No we don't.

A revolution would change direction. Elections lately do not accomplish that.

[H2O Man]

41. Of course not.

"Elections" are not only distinct from "revolutions," and indeed have almost the opposite meaning, but elections are one way to discourage revolutions.

I say that without putting any "value" on either elections or revolutions. Both, in fact, have very real positive and negative potentials.

However, a group of serious and capable people can -- in theory -- build a foundation for revolutionary change in society, by including working on elections within their efforts. Perhaps the best example to illustrate this potential is found in the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and '60s.

[Posteritatis]

38. And the Perspective Failure Award of the Day goes to... (nt)

[Ichingcarpenter]

40. Wikileaks is a Revolution even though you hate them

your political change from being a free republic poster and now
a DU poster is, I think, a change in paradigm.

You need a change in Paradigms in order to have a revolution
in social change, economic change and political change.
You don't get that in the US election bullshit.

I have to say you still don't get it, but you've made progress.

[rms013]

42. "They will select the people they want in government"?

If it costs $10,000,000.00 to elect a member of the House of Representatives, and $50,000,000 to elect a Senator, considering the new approach to campaign finance (unlimited corporate contributions), are we electing who we want or who they offer? To further exacerbate the issue those in real power, when unhappy with the popular vote, simply deny the will of the people and appoint whom they please (George Bush, 2000) or fraudulently change the voter results as happened in the swing state (Ohio) in the 2004 election thereby insuring victory for GWB.

The use of non auditable, privately controlled voting machines, the amount of money required to get elected, the legislated obstacles for citizens to register to vote all are part of the corruption of this democracy. It is not by happenstance but by design.

The two party system gives the illusion of choice. For the most part those choices are manufactured by the power brokers and the media which they own. Whether a Democratic or Republican majority the results are the same.

If a 'voter' revolution is to succeed it will start with an overhaul of the election laws. Taxpayer financed campaigns with no outside monies allowed, a constitutional amendment defining person-hood as being a live human being not a corporation, allow only a 3 month campaign window prior to the election, free media access on the 'public' airwaves (all channels as both the internet and broadcast bandwidth are part of the commons)and reinstatement of the truth in advertising laws, streamlined voter registration making it easier for those to register thereby increasing the participation, the return to paper ballots, and on and on. Of course this will not happen as it is not to the benefit of legislators,elected officials and their corporate backers.

[socialist_n_TN]

48. There you go. You see clearly rms

And since NONE of your last paragraph will happen for the reason you stated in your last sentence, we need extra electoral remedies.

Now before anybody freaks out and alerts on this as a call for "violent revolution", it COULD be accomplished with or without violence by an indefinite general strike, along with a "repayment strike" for bank loans. That would starve them of a large chunk of money.

The amount of violence involved would be TOTALLY dependent on what the capitalists did in the face of this challenge to their dictatorship. Violence in self defense is both moral and necessary.

Welcome to DU.

[MineralMan]

57. You've overstated the costs of running a congressional campaign.

While your numbers may be true for a few seats, their way overstated for a typical seat. See this:

http://www.cfinst.org/data/pdf/VitalStats_t1.pdf

You can't take a very expensive race and call it typical.

[marmar]

44. Seems more like replacing car parts every two years.

nt

[LoZoccolo]

45. The thing that the people arguing against you won't say is uthat

their idea of revolution involves some aspect of coercing the masses into something that the majority of them don't want. I'm not saying that the majority always holds the best opinion, but the people who want to skip the task of gaining consensus and sidestep the electoral process plan to intimidate them into compliance, or eliminate them, or perhaps they haven't thought that far out, or their calls are just theater. It's a disturbing notion that caused a lot of misery in the 20th century, so they won't come out and say it.

[Ichingcarpenter]

46. You really shouldn't post more than one sentence like you normally do

It makes you naked.

[readmoreoften]

55. +1. Least we know he isn't paid by the word.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. Using your 'make up what others mean' method, I could say that

what the OFA defenders of McClurkin won't say is that their idea of justice is seen today in Ghana, arrest of all gay people, they just won't come out and say it, so they defend the preacher who calls for war on us, and install him as surrogate to the candidate Obama. What they won't say is that McClurkin and Warren speak for them, and that is a disturbing notion, considering what is seen today in so many nations under the evangelical influence.
Or...I could say that those who are arguing the OP's side will not say that they want the destruction of Social Security, and that they have to be sly and apply coercion because the vast majority do not want cuts. It's disturbing to see them advocate for a return to pre New Deal times, even if they won't say it directly. What they really want is what the Republicans want, which is why they tie all dissent to the sort of memes used here today. Just as they did in the McCarthy era. Inference, implication, claiming to know 'what they really mean''.
Tripe of the most dangerous kind. Poison lies there.

[MineralMan]

52. Yup. Some people want a completely different system than

our Constitutional one. It's hard work to educate a population as large as ours, so the search for fast, drastic solutions appears to some to be the only way to proceed. It's not, but what I suggest is a difficult process, requiring huge amounts of effort. What they don't seem to understand is that an actual revolution is even more effort-intensive, and massively destructive to boot.

[TheKentuckian]

50. Oh come on. You know the difference between choosing options in a system

and changing the system.

For someone who likes to nit pick words, it sure is easy to toss aside the normal precession for outright fallacy at will.

I'm not personally under the impression that the most powerful are up for elections at all. The real players behind these faces and speakers of rhetoric are well beyond the process.
We can alternate the puppets that are deemed acceptable by such interests within very narrow confines but the puppet masters dictate.

[readmoreoften]

54. More phony left wing rhetoric from conservatives under the D.

Congressional voting is not a revolution. A political revolution changes a political system and, if it is successful, an economic system. Voting between neoliberals is not a "revolution."

[TransitJohn]

58. bad, bad, analogy fail. unrec

Until rich fuckers and corporations aren't allowed to buy candidates outright anymore, we don't even have elections, let alone revolutions. This is lame.

[Forkboy]

61. LOL