I’m not voting.
I want a revolution.
It’s what we’re supposed to do when things get like this.
But we’re too fat.
I’m not voting. – So you shouldn’t complain about what our elected officials do or don’t do because you had a chance to make your voice heard and be part of the solution, but you chose not to because the country doesn’t conform to your ideals.
I want a revolution. – Never going to happen, which is a good thing.
It’s what we’re supposed to do when things get like this. – We’re facing rough times. We’ve faced much worse and came back.
But we’re too fat. – A little diet and exercise should clear this recession right up.
If voting meant anything you’d be on to something, but our system isn’t controlled by your vote anymore.
The country is run by corporations, who are not The People.
Your vote doesn’t matter. The Parties don’t matter. We’re all being bled dry by the corporate controlled media/government.
Only a revolution can set us free. I want to be free.
In all seriousness, the reason for this is we have a passive electorate. By advocating for even more passivity, you are playing right into the hands of those corporations. They’re the one’s who don’t want you to vote. If an organized movement were to rise up in numbers that mattered, repeated mass loss for incumbants would send a message that catering to corporate interests would lead to them losing their jobs. Of course, this would require a massive sea change in American politics, but your solution supports the very powers you claim to be disgusted by.
You say you want a revolution. :) How would that look and play out?
in case u haven’t noticed there IS a revolution. it’s called the tea party
Brad—It would be ugly. But necessary. You cannot resolve The Declaration of Independence with the way our country is currently run.
Tea Party’s not new. They used to be called The John Birch Society and have gone by other names. They are a powerful voting block within the Republican Party, but will soon prove to be an electoral noose around their necks. The GOP is most likely going to lose this presidential election. Through demographic changes and the results of catering to their extremists, they will find they will have to abandon the Tea Party to remain viable.
The country is currently run like shit, which is why we have elections – to make our displeasure known. But if you truly believe in this revolution business, I’m very curious to know how you think it will play out in the real world. It would be ugly how? What do we replace the current system with?
End corporate lobbying.
End career politicians.
Get corporations out of the free press.
I;ll take whatever real world this amounts to than this one.
So you’re talking term limits, campaign finance reform amd and FCC regulations on campaign coverage. I think campaign finance reform is the most important of these and is just about the only Constitutional amendment I’d support. I do need to point out that none of these things amount to a revolution and will only come to pass through voting.
“The youth seemed only interested in a candidate who will legalize marijuana, otherwise they’ll tune out.”
I was going to argue against this but was having trouble coming up with words that didn’t seem to be me just projecting, but then I watched The Case of the Grinning Cat and Chris Marker said it best:
“They have been called apolitical, but here they are on the streets….. the fear is that they seek to canonize some one but instead they demonize every one, expecting from their efforts a globalized independence.”
which I think is more apt. Basically ‘the youth’s’ politics can boil down to, “What, you expect me to care about your stupid shit? Dude, it isn’t the 70s anymore.” That perspective is problematic but also in its own way helpful. A lot of, for instance, these socially stigmatizing statements the Republicans are making are confusing to young people on the very basis of the fact that it still even happens. The issue is that some get so caught up in the ‘wrong side of history’ argument (that these old folks’ll die off and then we won’t have to deal with their problems anymore) that they don’t realize the problems can only be resolved by actually dealing with them. They can get so dismissive of endemic problems that they don’t recognize the reasons they are endemic. I account for myself in that manner as well. But that’s not them being apolitical or uninterested. It’s a new politics that hasn’t matured into a functional statement yet.
They still vote.
2016: Obama’s America
-my neighbor who’s been bugging me to see it said it’s making millions in the box office, whatever that means. I reserve the right to call this garbage already since I’m not gonna waste $9.00 to see a slick infomercial masquerading as documentary intended for a converted audience.
“-my neighbor who’s been bugging me to see it said it’s making millions in the box office, whatever that means.”
It means it’s made $9million in just a couple of weeks, which is nothing in comparison to say a superhero movie but quickly puts it in the top 10 grossing political documentaries and top 20 grossing documentaries of all time. It will make more money over the next few weeks too, based purely on political fervor. Don’t account all of the money to come from the choir (as in ‘preaching to the choir’). Already I know three people who went to see it out of that morbid political curiosity of intentionally seeing something they know will piss them the fuck off, because they just had to see it for realz realz for realz guys, these guys say this shit for real.
It was released through Rocky Mount Pictures, distributors of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Atlas Shrugged: Part I, The Ten Commandments (2007), Billy: The Early Years of Billy Graham, Color of the Cross, and An Inconsistent Truth. Any questions?
For what it’s worth (not much ‘round these parts, but quite a lot monetarily speaking), Fahrenheit 9/11 made ten times what _2016: Obama’s America_ is going to make.
“It was released through Rocky Mount Pictures”
That explains it. Add the fact that damn Dinesh D’souza is involved says it all.
I hate to say this but the release was well timed, and well calculated by the powers behind it.
“For what it’s worth (not much ‘round these parts, but quite a lot monetarily speaking), Fahrenheit 9/11 made ten times what 2016: Obama’s America is going to make.”
Probably wouldn’t have played as well at Cannes, either.
“I hate to say this but the release was well timed, and well calculated by the powers behind it.”
Yeah, I had gotten so used to these types of documentaries being limited to direct-to-DVD and very limited release that I forgot about the 2004 election where this shit was coming out in mainstream theatres like once a month or so (see: The Kerry Swiftboater documentary, 9/11, and so on). Maybe it’s something about incumbency but I don’t recall this happening during 2008. Of course I think (and other people can disagree and that’s okay) that the 2008 election was a hell of a lot more polite and engaging than either the 2004 or 2012, so these documentaries may literally represent documented stress. Or whatever. I almost can’t keep myself interested in them in the long run.
A kneejerk reaction brings on the bipartisan structured appeal to ‘objectivity’ by wondering why the liberal documentaries of this type aren’t hitting the wide release theatres. But Ai Weiwei is playing in one Century theatre here while Obama’s America is playing the other one. I don’t think that necessarily counts as ‘balanced’ since the thing about the Ai Weiwei documentary is, criticizing China for their human rights abuses is not controversial in the United States. And we still have plenty of time before the end of the year for movies like We Are NOT Broke (the documentary where a group of people hunt down a few corporations to ask them to pay several trillion dollars in taxes) to go wide.
>>A kneejerk reaction brings on the bipartisan structured appeal to ‘objectivity’ by wondering why the liberal documentaries of this type aren’t hitting the wide release theatres.<<
The party out of power tends to be more aggressive with these “creative” capaign tools.
“The party out of power tends to be more aggressive with these “creative” campaign tools.”
The party in power is occupied with reponsibilities of running the country and the economy. Their base on one hand tends to become more complacent or unenthusiastic about the process. The opposition is just happy to sit in the sidelines and play the blame game.
In this current political climate whoever screams the loudest will prevail. The GOP is running on a platform based on distortions and lies, and it’s working. Lies, if repeated long enough naturally turn into a common belief. In this war of propaganda Karl Rove and his ilk got the upper hand. The horde is growing. Whether they are ill-informed or lied to by the GOP is beside the point. They are strong, disciplined and totally commited to their cause. They will turn up in huge numbers come election day and possibly win or force a recount.
Meanwhile, progressives and liberals who are divided, confused and distracted with various causes and interest will be caught daydreaming come November.
You want a revolution? It may already be happening, but not the glorious one the left imagines.
“You want a revolution? It may already be happening, but not the glorious one the left imagines.”
Of course not. Ever since Sinclair Lewis’ It Can’t Happen Here in 1935, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that sooner or later the United States would go fascist. It’s been creeping along like a particularly virulent form of cancer, which of course it is. From the protocols of Homeland Security to the rise of a plethora of right-wing hate groups and the inherent repression of the evangelical Christian militias within and without the U.S. military, the day of the long knives draws nigh.
“foregone conclusion that sooner or later the United States would go fascist”
“The horde is growing.”
“I’m not voting. I want a revolution.”
Mods – can we change the name of this thread to “Left Wing Wackos: Gather Here!”
And I do say that lovingly. You all are my very favorite left wing wackos! :)
Well, it’s the right-wing wackos you really need to be concerned about. They’re the ones with the vitriol and the guns. Consider for example the black CNN journalist who was pelted with nuts because “that’s the way we feed the animals” INSIDE THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION. Consider also what goes on in the hinterland:
For example the trial this week of FEAR militia at Ft. Stewart, Georgia.
just to release the tension here: i forget which comedian characterized this election as: alien v. predator
but i do agree, as i said at the top of the page: the tea party et al IS the revolution
I advocate a semi-revolution
The trouble with a total revolution
(Ask any reputable Rosicrucian)
Is that it brings the same class up on top.
Executives of skillful execution
Will therefore plan to go half-way and stop.
Yes, revolutions are the only salves.
But they’re one thing that should be done by halves.
A Total Revolution (An answer for Robert Frost)
I advocate a total revolution.
The trouble with a semi-revolution,
it’s likely to be slow as evolution.
Who wants to spend the ages in collusion
with Compromise, Complacence and Confusion?
As for the same class coming up on top
that’s wholecloth from the propaganda shop;
the old saw says there’s loads of room on top.
That’s where the poor should really plan to stop.
And speaking of those people called the “haves.”
Who own the whole cow and must have the calves
(and plant the wounds so they can sell the salves),
they won’t be stopped by doing things by halves.
I say that for a permanent solution
there’s nothing like a total revolution!
P.S. And may I add by way of a conclusion
I wouldn’t dream to ask a Rosicrucian.
Anyone notice how silent the media was to the Ron Paul controversy? It would appear he was robbed the nomination. A friend of mine who avidly supports Paul was telling me about this recently. She said he won the Iowa caucus by a land slide, as well as others.
The media ignores him and the unfair treatment he’s been getting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtDJ6Ay4QMw
I know Paul’s ideas are not flawless but he’s probably the best candidate we could possibly elect and at least offers an alternative to Obamney.
Our lack of choice is exactly why I agree with revolution, or at least pushing back somehow.
That’s what you get for trying to as a Republican from a libertarian platform.
Here’s the simplest explanation I could find from a libertarian as to why Paul could not have received the nomination:
“The GOP rules stated that you must have a plurality of the delegates in five states to be entered in nomination. This is different than just having “multiple” delegates or even just 5 states. It means you have to have more delegates in the state that nominates you than any other candidate, though not necessarily a majority. This rule is what stopped Ron Paul from becoming nominated . . .
. . . Did Paul have the five necessary? No. The only states where he had a plurality were Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, and Louisiana. Even then, Louisiana was strongly contested, as was Maine. Regardless, those are only four states. Five states nominated Paul, as well as a territory, but they weren’t the right five states as they didn’t have a plurality of Ron Paul delegates.
That’s why Ron Paul said he wouldn’t win the nomination. In response, many Paul fans claim that Nevada counted, and thus Ron Paul made it. But Nevada doesn’t at all count as a plurality for Paul because Romney had a plurality of the delegates bound to him.
In Nevada, a state typically claimed by Paul’s supporters as one where he had a plurality, the delegates are “bound,” meaning that in the first round of voting they must vote for a specific candidate. Most were bound to Romney. Even if we agree that they could vote for whomever they pleased, on paper they were Romney’s and Paul did not have a plurality there. This means that Nevada didn’t count as one of the necessary five. Even with Maine, Paul only had a plurality in four states."
“I know Paul’s ideas are not flawless but he’s probably the best candidate we could possibly elect…”
The guy who believes life was best in this nation when the middle of this country was as poverty stricken as many third world nations are today is the best candidate we could possibly elect?
That sounds bad…
P.S. – To those os you speaking to hyperbole about the “importance of voting” and, on the opposite side, the need for a “revolution”…
History shows us this is actually one of the most politically moderate times specifically because there is so much security in party-line voting. Republicans vote for republicans, democrats vote for democrats. Ron Paul isn’t going to garner 30% of the vote just because he splinters the republican ticket by forming some modern day Bull Moose Party. Nobody would (though I would enjoy seeing Palin’s Pitbull Lipstick Party have a go at it)…
Also, one could easily make the argument that voting actually hampers political reform. Compare how much angry women got changed before 1919 to what has changed after. If civil rights legislation had been put up to vote it would’ve been shot down by the majority populace; just as we see gay marriage getting shot down when put up to a vote, today (though those are probably the only comparable points between the two).
Complacency tends to set in once a marginalized group is brought into the mainstream (and that complacency happens both among the formally marginalized and the mainstream).