All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[babyblob]

Well as they say, those that make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.

People who talk about violent revolution have no real idea what it entails. They have all these great ideas for sweeping away the old guard and being heroes and making a utopia. In America that would just not work.

First off we have the strongest military in the world. Some militia nut jobs or collage kids who love to tweet clever things but have never fired a gun are not going to stop them. We really think the Generals and top brass are just going to sit back or side with a civilian mob to over throw their government?

And lets say there was a civil war that lasted like more then the 10 minutes it would take for the army to just knock the **** out of these people. Fine. But there will be chaos. People will not be working, if they did no IRS and other government mainstays, im sure the banks wont be up and running. So no pay checks.

Stores being looted so where is food, water and medicine going to come from?

You get sick or hurt, no one answering 911, the hospitals I am pretty sure will not be operating, at least not for the common man.

And we are creatures of comfort. No streaming, no Twitter, no Amazon? I think half of the country will die if they cant see Instagram cat playing a piano, or finding out Kim K's thoughts on a rainy day. This country is too soft for a long scale revolution.

And of course Russia and China, and North Korea will just sit back and chill while we descend into chaos and rebuild our perfect world. They will just sit back let it happen and let us rebuild with out a word or action. Maybe even invade.

But yea its fun to dream about that civil war to throw out all the bad people in Washington and crook law makers.

never going to happen.

[green_garnish]

People who talk about violent revolution have no real idea what it entails. They have all these great ideas for sweeping away the old guard and being heroes and making a utopia. In America that would just not work.

First off we have the strongest military in the world.

The military is controlled by the politicians. If the military feels it is unfairly or dangerously restricted by the politicians, there's absolutely nothing to stop them taking control in the name of freedom. Not the politicians and certainly not the militia. So, a violent revolution

[PwrdOn]

People who talk about violent revolution have no real idea what it entails. They have all these great ideas for sweeping away the old guard and being heroes and making a utopia. In America that would just not work.

First off we have the strongest military in the world. Some militia nut jobs or collage kids who love to tweet clever things but have never fired a gun are not going to stop them. We really think the Generals and top brass are just going to sit back or side with a civilian mob to over throw their government?

And lets say there was a civil war that lasted like more then the 10 minutes it would take for the army to just knock the **** out of these people. Fine. But there will be chaos. People will not be working, if they did no IRS and other government mainstays, im sure the banks wont be up and running. So no pay checks.

Stores being looted so where is food, water and medicine going to come from?

You get sick or hurt, no one answering 911, the hospitals I am pretty sure will not be operating, at least not for the common man.

And we are creatures of comfort. No streaming, no Twitter, no Amazon? I think half of the country will die if they cant see Instagram cat playing a piano, or finding out Kim K's thoughts on a rainy day. This country is too soft for a long scale revolution.

And of course Russia and China, and North Korea will just sit back and chill while we descend into chaos and rebuild our perfect world. They will just sit back let it happen and let us rebuild with out a word or action. Maybe even invade.

But yea its fun to dream about that civil war to throw out all the bad people in Washington and crook law makers.

never going to happen.

You're missing the point of that quote, it's not that anybody is particularly looking forward to a violent revolution or fantasizing that it will be somehow easy and glorious. The point is that a society that is unjust and rotten at its core simply cannot persist for long, and that if the powers that be try to block any kind of reform or progress the only end result of that will be to inflame the people to rise up. Now the threshold for that in America is much higher than it would be in a poor country, because people's lives here are generally pretty good and they have a lot to lose by revolting, but if we continue down the path that we're on right now, where inequality and bigotry are allowed to run rampant with the full endorsement of the authorities, then somewhere down the line, something will inevitably happen.

[babyblob]

The military is controlled by the politicians. If the military feels it is unfairly or dangerously restricted by the politicians, there's absolutely nothing to stop them taking control in the name of freedom. Not the politicians and certainly not the militia. So, a violent revolution

it is going to take an amazing breaking point for the USA Military to take up arms against the government with enough force. Maybe an assassination or something. The military turning on the government is a great action movie or novel but it is not any where close to reality. At least not right now. 20 years from now maybe?

I dont see many generals or soldiers risking treason over BLM, Trans and gay rights, Tax cuts for the rich and health care for all.

[babyblob]

You're missing the point of that quote, it's not that anybody is particularly looking forward to a violent revolution or fantasizing that it will be somehow easy and glorious. The point is that a society that is unjust and rotten at its core simply cannot persist for long, and that if the powers that be try to block any kind of reform or progress the only end result of that will be to inflame the people to rise up. Now the threshold for that in America is much higher than it would be in a poor country, because people's lives here are generally pretty good and they have a lot to lose by revolting, but if we continue down the path that we're on right now, where inequality and bigotry are allowed to run rampant with the full endorsement of the authorities, then somewhere down the line, something will inevitably happen.

Down the line. maybe years and years down the line. I doubt I will see any revolution that has meaningful change in the next couple decades. As long as the military is backing the government any revolution is doomed to failure.

[green_garnish]

it is going to take an amazing breaking point for the USA Military to take up arms against the government with enough force. Maybe an assassination or something. The military turning on the government is a great action movie or novel but it is not any where close to reality. At least not right now. 20 years from now maybe?

I dont see many generals or soldiers risking treason over BLM, Trans and gay rights, Tax cuts for the rich and health care for all.

I agree, but how long do you think the military would tolerate Trump and the Congress that supported him? What if the last election had turned out differently?

[PwrdOn]

Down the line. maybe years and years down the line. I doubt I will see any revolution that has meaningful change in the next couple decades. As long as the military is backing the government any revolution is doomed to failure.

The military is very good at killing people, but its track record is not so great when it comes to winning hearts and minds. If millions of people take to the streets like they did last summer, what are they going to do, gun them all down?

[babyblob]

I agree, but how long do you think the military would tolerate Trump and the Congress that supported him? What if the last election had turned out differently?

I Still doubt they would rise up. As much as we hate Trump we are not going to get hundreds of thousands of soldiers and the leadership to rise up and throw him out by force. I mean he ?would have to do something really drastic. I mean hell there wee military that still support him after the 6th for crying out loud. A few make a move on Trump? Maybe? But but there would be more ready to defend the legal president and congress of the USA then would go against them. So yea maybe some chaos for a bit. A compete over throw of the government and a reset button? No I doubt it.

[Jack Dracula]

The military is controlled by the politicians. If the military feels it is unfairly or dangerously restricted by the politicians, there's absolutely nothing to stop them taking control in the name of freedom. Not the politicians and certainly not the militia. So, a violent revolution

The main reason the Founders weren’t inclined towards having a standing army. Historically, such armies with no war to fight tend to turn on their governments.
Some historians believe that”s why the second amendment was added to the constitution. Well-armed state militias would come together to defend the country should need arise.

[babyblob]

The military is very good at killing people, but its track record is not so great when it comes to winning hearts and minds. If millions of people take to the streets like they did last summer, what are they going to do, gun them all down?

Are large of people with assult riffles bought at Dicks Sporting goods going to defend against a swarm of tanks? or an air strike? If a crowd a large crowd got really out of hand and became a threat to the government, I am not talking the BLM protests or the riots that happened there. I am talking a large armed crowd taking to the street with the intent of overthrowing the government no one in power would just sit back and let it play out. They would put it down hard. Any attempt to over throw the government with out the support of the military will fail end of story.

So you would not just have to convince the people but the military leadership as well. And enough of them to win and not just get slapped around by the others who stayed loyal.

And the military would not have to shoot everyone. Just a few hundred with over whelming firepower that will make the others turn tail and run.

[PwrdOn]

The main reason the Founders weren’t inclined towards having a standing army. Historically, such armies with no war to fight tend to turn on their governments.
Some historians believe that”s why the second amendment was added to the constitution. Well-armed state militias would come together to defend the country should need arise.

Well that's another piece of our hallowed Constitution that just doesn't make any sense in the modern age. In the 18th century you could maybe get away with fighting a war with a ragtag collection of farmboys and privateers, but really even by that time a country that did not have a professional core of trained career soldiers was basically asking to be invaded, and in this day and age it would absolutely be suicidal not to field a standing army.

As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, we really need to stop wasting the time trying to read the tea leaves to divine what the founders really meant by it, because who the hell cares what a bunch of long dead slaveowners think anyway? This is a modern issue and we need a modern policy to deal with it, what is the value of inserting some torturous justification linking it back to a centuries old document?

Are large of people with assult riffles bought at Dicks Sporting goods going to defend against a swarm of tanks? or an air strike? If a crowd a large crowd got really out of hand and became a threat to the government, I am not talking the BLM protests or the riots that happened there. I am talking a large armed crowd taking to the street with the intent of overthrowing the government no one in power would just sit back and let it play out. They would put it down hard. Any attempt to over throw the government with out the support of the military will fail end of story.

So you would not just have to convince the people but the military leadership as well. And enough of them to win and not just get slapped around by the others who stayed loyal.

And the military would not have to shoot everyone. Just a few hundred with over whelming firepower that will make the others turn tail and run.

Did that work in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Vietnam? It doesn't matter how many people you kill, if conditions have deteriorated to the point where people think they have a better chance taking to the streets than playing by a rigged set of rules, then no amount of suppression will be able to restore order. Now it is true that many revolutions just devolve into chaotic bouts of infighting and leave the country much worse than when they started, but it is also true that just about all of the significant events in history that have advanced our understanding of how to govern and organize a society would not have been possible without violence.

[babyblob]

Well that's another piece of our hallowed Constitution that just doesn't make any sense in the modern age. In the 18th century you could maybe get away with fighting a war with a ragtag collection of farmboys and privateers, but really even by that time a country that did not have a professional core of trained career soldiers was basically asking to be invaded, and in this day and age it would absolutely be suicidal not to field a standing army.

As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, we really need to stop wasting the time trying to read the tea leaves to divine what the founders really meant by it, because who the hell cares what a bunch of long dead slaveowners think anyway? This is a modern issue and we need a modern policy to deal with it, what is the value of inserting some torturous justification linking it back to a centuries old document?



Did that work in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Vietnam? It doesn't matter how many people you kill, if conditions have deteriorated to the point where people think they have a better chance taking to the streets than playing by a rigged set of rules, then no amount of suppresion will be able to restore order. Now it is true that many revolutions just devolve into chaotic bouts of infighting and leave the country much worse than when they started, but it is also true that pretty that just about all of the significant events in history that have advanced our understanding of how to govern and organize a society would not have been possible without violence.

Maybe in the long run things would be better. But many people would be dead before they saw it. And that is if America while having this revolution is not invaded by another country to start with.

it may happen as you said. I just very much doubt it will happen in the next 20 or 30 years.

And to be honest Afghanistan and Iraq are not the same. They never lived the pampered life that us Americans have. I mean a few years of war in those countries and Americans were bitching to get out. So yea Im sure they will be much more open minded about hardship and the realities of war when it is on our front door.

[PwrdOn]

Maybe in the long run things would be better. But many people would be dead before they saw it. And that is if America while having this revolution is not invaded by another country to start with.

it may happen as you said. I just very much doubt it will happen in the next 20 or 30 years.

And to be honest Afghanistan and Iraq are not the same. They never lived the pampered life that us Americans have. I mean a few years of war in those countries and Americans were bitching to get out. So yea Im sure they will be much more open minded about hardship and the realities of war when it is on our front door.

Pre-revolutionary France was one of the richest and most powerful nations on Earth at the time, even the American colonies had a vastly higher standard of living, for white people at any rate, than most of the world when they revolted. The extent to which people FEEL aggrieved enough to turn to violence typically doesn't have much to do with how poor their living conditions are in absolute terms. Yes Americans have grown used to a comfortable life here and many would not be able to tolerate the sacrifices needed to see a revolution through to the end, though the way these things go, once the spark has been lit there's pretty much no going back to how it was before, so people will be forced to tough it out whether they want to or not.

[BeastieRunner]

Beastie's Cartoons of the Week

[Zauriel]

the thing of 3rd party candidates. I have not seen one I support, I have not seen one I take seriously. But that does not mean others are like that. if someone hates the GOP but also does not like the Dems for whatever reason they are under no obligation to vote Dem. Cant just say Well The Dems are not the GOP so you have to vote for them. or sat well you didnt vote for the Dems over a 3rd party so everything going on right now is your fault.

For one thing is some who votes 3rd party does find a Dem they like or are at least on the fence about then they may say look at they way I was treated by them. To Hell with these people.

I would not vote 3rd party right now unless I really believed in the candidate. And I am not going to tell someone that they have no right to vote for a 3rd party or blame them for it.

Maybe the Dems should stop blaming the 3rd party and give them so much hate and abuse and say
"Well you dont like our message. Why is that? let me hear your reasons and I will try and address them."
We keep saying the GOP needs to reach out and try and change if they want voters. Why dont the Dems do the same with 3rd party rather then do the whole "Your are an idiot this is your fault nonsense."

At the end of the day voting is one of are biggest and best rights. And people have no obligation to vote for anyone for any reason. If I found a 3rd party I liked better then Biden I would damn sure vote for him even if I was only one of 100 people who did. Because that is my right.

And the Dems blame the 3rd party a lot. But if there was no 3rd party on the ticket that year would all of those 3rd parties have still voted for Clinton would enough of them have voted for her to make a difference anyway? If they dislike her enough to vote someone else who has no chance of winning why would they all the sudden like her enough to vote if their person was not around?

Voting for a 3rd party or any party however out of spite is dumb as Hell though.

The Democrats blamed Ralph Nader for taking votes from Al Gore in the 2000 elections. I know a couple of democrats who voted for Mr. Nader over Mr. Gore. One of them regretted his vote for Nader and vowed to vote for John Kerry in 2004.

Whenever The Dems lose a presidential election, they attribute their presidential election defeat to third parties But I love how they rejoiced when the third parties are helping them win the election. If it was not for Ross Perot, Bill Clinton would not have won the presidential election twice.

The Libertarian Party is a curse to the Republican Party as Green Party to the Democratic Party. Libertarians and Republicans have similar interests in common although they are not exactly the same.