What do the Sanders people mean when they use the word "Revolution?"

[Renew Deal]

What type of revolution? How would the Sanders "revolution" be different than other socialist revolutions?

[azmom]

1. It is transforming the political system. We have

A corrupt system right now wherein millionaires buy off our government officials to do their bidding. We want to change that. It is a political revolution. It has nothing to do with socialism.

[Renew Deal]

7. What viable proposals does Bernie have to close the citizens united loophole, publicly finance

campaigns, end lobbying, limit jumping from gov't to business, etc.?

Since when is ending corruption "revolutionary?"

[virtualobserver]

53. when you are the only candidate who isn't sucking up the corporate cash

it shouldn't be revolutionary, especially in the Democratic Party....but it is.

[treestar]

109. Didn't answer RD's question

but you are pretty much taking the position that the cash is takes to campaign is all that is necessary. Whoever spends the most will win thus "Wall Street" wins. If that's how we feel about it, we have no choice but to become billionaires. That'll be what we have to do to get our way. Calling Bernie pure of this cash is questionable but by your own terms, he doesn't have it, so can't win. The voters are apparently too dumb to respond to anything but the results of the spending in campaigns.

[virtualobserver]

117. no, the first step has to be to prove that you can win without the cash.....

The very idea that you can win by taking their money, and then remove money from the political system is naive.

Winning without the cash proves your actual commitment,
but that coupled with running against the corruption
gives you a mandate to make the change...which is even more important.

Without a mandate, a plan to change the system is useless.

[Vattel]

114. ending oligarchy is revolutionary.

He does not imagine that a president can, through legislation, accomplish this revolution. It will only happen when enough of the electorate appreciates the need for such a revolution.

[Renew Deal]

119. If it's not by legislation, then how?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Elections and legislation is how things get done.

[PeteSelman]

2. We mean we want to kill all the current leaders and install a socialist dictator.

Are you serious with this question?

All it means is breaking the current corporate status quo and returning the power to the People.

[cyberswede]

3. LOL

Yeah, that OP is full of

[Renew Deal]

9. How does Sanders plan on "breaking the current corporate status quo and returning the power to the

people?" What makes that revolutionary? What does it even mean?

[azmom]

15. LOL

[Zorra]

63. ^^Spoiler alert^^

[treestar]

95. Sanders being president is going to bring that about?

[PeteSelman]

102. Probably not. We need a wave election for that.

We could have done this in 2009 but we have a spineless, weasel, bought off party who shook in fear at the thought of doing what the People wanted and bringing about real change.

Can't thwart the paymasters you know.

[treestar]

104. We could have voted for other people

I don't see any way out of that. We have to convince the other voters, not just name-call the people who did get elected.

[Ron Green]

4. First, a rejection of what the "mainstream"

media have become, and a rebirth of real journalism or the expansion and flourishing of social media as a viable Fourth Estate.

Perhaps also a rapid growth of worker co-ops and worker self-directed enterprises, a kind of New Capitalism that supports the people who actually produce.

And how about the humanization of society and environment as being called for by Pope Francis (of whom Bernie Sanders is a big fan.)

It's time now for these and more.

[Renew Deal]

12. Is Bernie Sanders really proposing Theocratic Socialism?

[Ron Green]

16. ???

Was this OP serious, or just some wanking?

On edit: I see you've changed "Ron Paul" to "Bernie Sanders." So the answer is No, of course he's not advocating a theocracy. Ever hear of G.K. Chesterton? Catholic Social Teaching?
You wanna know about a revolution, you better be ready for some divergent thinking.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

110. Democratic S

[treestar]

111. How is Sanders going to force people

into the co-ops and self directed enterprises? We could do that now if we chose. How is Sanders going to bring about something so vague and grand as the "rebirth of real journalism?" Can that be done under the First Amendment.

[Ron Green]

116. When's the last time you heard a national politician

talking about either of these things? Sanders is the first, at least in my lifetime. That's where it starts: the leaders have to tell the truth, and hopefully the people will follow.
Your notion of elected officials "forcing" people to do things is part of the very mindset that's got to change.

[leftofcool]

5. Don't expect a real answer

[cyberswede]

73. It wasn't even a real question

See: " How would the Sanders "revolution" be different than other socialist revolutions?"

[arcane1]

77. Exactly. Expect more of this nonsense as his numbers rise. n/t

[fredamae]

6. Restoring and preserving real democracy

and regaining a seat at the table in our government.

[Renew Deal]

26. "Restoring and preserving real democracy"

What does that mean?

[fredamae]

56. If you have to ask-What then, does your

question seek in response?

[whatchamacallit]

31. He knows exactly what it means

he just wanted to get his Red Scare on. Maybe this is a preview of phase two (having failed to transform Sanders into a racist).

[treestar]

97. What is real democracy?

Sounds like that is where a minority of voters get to boss the others around?

You are dissatisfied with who the People elect. We get it.

[fredamae]

103. You may believe it is

rule by minority. I don't. That's the system we have now. I don't call that democracy. It's not working for anyone But those very wealthy that IS the minority.

To me, democracy allows all a seat at the table who chose to be seated in one, without discrimination, to participate in the shaping, function and purpose of "our government".
You don't Have to participate, but the door is open if you want to. That is not what "the peoples" government has evolved into.
Today, they lie, we trust, they close the door in our faces the moment they are "anointed" into "corporate service"- formerly know as Public Service.

Wall Street, big corps, the wealthy bought our seats out from under us, while we were shopping. The selfish, self serving, greedy, elected and appointed public officials migrated from "country first" to "I owe you Nothing-I got mine-screw you" political environment We have largely allowed them to create.

[treestar]

105. We don't have to let Wall Street buy anything

It's too easy to simply accuse a vague entity like "Wall Street."

People have the ability to get out and campaign for the candidates they want and to vote. They don't have to limit themselves to TV ads and corporate media.

The majority who take the time to vote choose people who you claim are corrupt, but yet you have not convinced them of it. They keep voting the same people into Congress, or new people you don't like. All of the republicans and most of the democrats are covered by this mass condemnation about "Wall Street" yet each one was voted in by a majority in their district. Democracy means those voters will count equally as much as the "progressives." Calling them stupid or calling the representatives corrupt doesn't cut it.

Bernie Sanders can't change that. Thank goodness, as he'd be no better a dictator than any other human.

[HFRN]

8. Ron Paul used revolution in their logo

it's absurd to map this purely to 'Socialist' revolutions

besides, people really don't care about labels, they care about substance

[Renew Deal]

24. "Democratic Socialist" is a major part of Sanders identity and popularity.

Sanders chooses to use that label and has used it to justify his avoidance of the Democratic Party.

[HFRN]

27. I dissagree - I think people support him in SPITE of his self chosen label

they are desperate for someone to discuss the censored issues

[Renew Deal]

28. Right. Do you believe he would be just as popular if he called himself a "new Democrat?"

Sanders uses that label for a reason.

[HFRN]

34. I'm not saying a label makes *no* difference, but I do think

in Sander's case, they support him in spite of it. (people don't mind his initials 'BS' either)

there has to be a reason nobody runs under the 'mean to babies, puppies and kittens' banner

[Renew Deal]

36. lol

The mean to puppies thing is funny.

[seabeyond]

40. this is what we like to pretend that makes no sense and i refuse. he goes independent cause it works

for him. there are advantages and disadvantages. advantages, he can gather repug, libertarian, teabaggers, independents, populist and small portion of democratic, middle and working, ie white.

that is his revolution

[Romulox]

10. It means that Hillary's Goldman Sachs backers are getting nervous. nt

[Renew Deal]

11. Is that a threat?

[Romulox]

13. You *can't* be serious.

[Renew Deal]

18. "Venezuela Jails Over 100 "Bourgeois, Barbaric, Capitalist Parasites""

"It's time to deepen the offensive, go to the bone in this economic war," warned Venezuelan President Maduro - echoing Hugo Chavez's iron fist of socialism (and nationalization) before him - as his decision to jail over 100 businessmen is "defending the poor."
<snip>

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-15/venezuela-jails-over-100-bourgeois-barbaric-capitalist-parasites

[Romulox]

22. I didn't realize that yours was a comedy routine. Duly noted. nt

[Renew Deal]

25. The joke is that there is no serious thought to Sanders supporters use of "revolution"

[virtualobserver]

60. the joke is that there is no serious thought to this OP

it isn't "Sanders supporters use of 'revolution' ".

It is Bernie Sanders who is using the term, and the term that he uses is "political revolution"

He says that we need "a political revolution to transform our country economically, politically, socially, and environmentally,"

Hillary supporters alternately say that it is either too extreme to succeed or that it isn't a revolution at all.

The real joke is that Hillary proposes minimal change.

[Romulox]

64. I thought you were accusing me of threatening...Goldman Sachs. What about *that*?

[Renew Deal]

118. That's funny

But no. Not you personally.

[treestar]

106. This^^^^^^^^^

Somebody always wants a "revolution." But the US is pretty stable. As stable as it gets in the world today.

And we don't need one. We already had one. We can vote in socialists if we choose. The problem with some socialists is they refuse to acknowledge being in the minority and that they have some convincing to do. It's easier to simply blame "Wall Street" or "the corporations." Deep down I think THEY want to be the ones that get to manipulate the voters. "Democracy" is what they want, not what the voters want.

[hootinholler]

100. WOW throwing banksters in jail?

What a radical thought. Maybe Iceland should reconsider that too.

[mmonk]

14. System change.

[Renew Deal]

20. How so? To what?

System change is another meaningless term.

[treestar]

96. Being elected President authorizes a person to change the "system?"

I didn't realize that we had no separation of powers in this country.

[Koinos]

17. I think what he means is a lot of mass marching and protesting.

I have done a lot of that; and, to be honest, I don't think it works very well.

The press ignores, undercounts, and downplays, while protesters get arrested.

The establishment doesn't care. They know where the real power lies.

I see no immediate prospect of a legislative (House and Senate) revolution.

I don't think Sanders is advocating we "remove" the rich and redistribute their assets.

I'm not sure what would work. Occupy Wall Street was thoroughly marginalized.

Usually, the most effective "revolutions" begin on the local level, not at the top. They begin with local communities and work their way up to cities and states. That is how republicans have conducted their revolution.

Electing a certain kind of president isn't all that useful. City and state politics are where to begin.

If progressives take over state houses -- one state at a time -- a real revolution has a chance.

[Renew Deal]

32. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

It was the closest to answering the revolution question.

[whatchamacallit]

19. It's getting all FR up in here!

[NuclearDem]

21. It means go to rallies, hear what I want to hear, then go home.

But if anyone tries to say anything actually revolutionary and make me uncomfortable for a minute, we'll shout them down.

[seabeyond]

33. anyone tries to say anything actually revolutionary and make me uncomfortable

damn good point. fuckin too true and lmao.

ya....

he. i think that is very well stated. i will remember that for future conversation on revolutionary discussion. the point is, this revolution is for working class and middle class, ie whites....

[whatchamacallit]

47. You do know how this country was founded

right?

[seabeyond]

51. you guys could not handle a couple black women speaking out. seriously?

[whatchamacallit]

55. You've lost me

[Bobbie Jo]

78. Nailed it.

Viva la revolucion!

[stevenleser]

23. In reality it would mean proposing bills and pouting when the GOP House won't pass them.

then watching helplessly as, despite any public ranting he might do, Republican legislators use their opposition to him to shore up their own support with their base and the RNC runs against him in 2018, because he couldn't accomplish anything and those few things he proposed "were so radical", and the Repubs gains seats in the House and Senate.

That's the reality based version of what the first two years of a Sanders Presidency would look like.

The Sanders supporter fantasy version is, the GOP grassroots that are now supporting one of the 17 crazies for President and their radical rightwing agendas, to include sending all undocumented immigrants home and forcing 10 year old rape victims to take their pregnancies to term, would be so impressed with Sanders speeches that they would change everything they believe in and support a progressive left agenda and force GOP lawmakers to vote for Sanders' bills. Or, alternatively, the unicorns flying across the sky would confuse Republican lawmakers into pushing the "Yea" button for Sanders' bills and not the "Nay" button when voting.

[seabeyond]

35. this is something i had not thought of. we have the repug party by the neck. i thought

sanders will be ineffective but harmless for the most part, though may hurt areas he is not focused on cause he has only one goal. i figure he will put his heals in to that one goal, economic equality and all else would fall to the side, which i am not thrilled about, but we women have been there before.

but... your suggestion that it would help to put the repug in a better light, when we have them by the neck and they cant free themselves is a whole other point. allowing a resurrection of their party

interesting

not to mention the inevitable weakening of our party cause we had to bring someone outside the party and all that says about how we feel about democratic party

[stevenleser]

39. I wish I could claim special foresight but it is the same playbook as 2009-2010

the past is prologue here. Obama had crazy numbers of people show up at his campaign events. He is a better speaker than Sanders, IMHO, and he won a pretty massive election victory and the Republicans did exactly what I said. And you can bet they will do it again since it worked.

Actually, Republicans are and will be in a better position to do this now then they were in 2009 because they have gerrymandered the house districts to the point that they have absolutely nothing to fear. They will not lose control of the House until 2023 at the earliest no matter what they do just about.

[seabeyond]

43. hope and change, revolution. this surprises me that we can pretend we did not have this same

thing in 2008 and obama walked in and saw just how much his hope and change was not gonna fly

the very people now yelling revolution, trashed obama cause he did not bring the hope and change

and they will do the same with sanders when he cannot bring the revolution

i am not a pollyanna kinda gal and do not get that thinking.

[Armstead]

41. Accept Apathy and despair -- That's kind of your theme

If -- as is quite possible -- Sanders (OR CLINTON or OMALLEY) were president and that happened, it's a matter of what they do with it.

I do think, despite your predictably gloomy assessment of the public, instead of "pouting" Sanders would keep on pushing and keep on using the bully pulpit to explain how, let's say, expanding Medicare eligibility would be a good thing for the average person....nd he might also do as he did as mayor, and actually bargain with his adversaries -- not from the usual Democratic position of "3/4 in the GOP direction" -- and actually get some stuff done.

And it's possible -- no guarantees -- the political center of gravity could move more in the direction of supporting positive liberal/progressive, er, progress. People in that "swing voter" demographic, and even those who are more reasonably conservative, could well become more truly moderate instead of continuing to buy the GOP crap.

[stevenleser]

42. No, reality is my theme. We're screwed because of the 2010 election results and the subsequent

redistricting. Arguing against me here will not help you.

The sooner you and other folks acknowledge that the better we will all be.

This is the situation in which we find ourselves. Pretending reality is not what it is will never be a good strategy.

[Armstead]

45. OKay. Screw all this politics crap. What's on ESPN?

[stevenleser]

54. See my #52 below. nt

[seabeyond]

46. you know how the repugs got the power? start local then state. when i start seeing this revolution

focusing locally and spreading out to state then i will know it is serious. i listened to these people in 2000 and beyond discussing getting into the local races thru out local govt and spreading out from there. they had intent and purpose and did.

i am not seeing any suggestion of this with the sander campaign. NONE. just we are gonna start at the very top and fix EVERYTHING.

not putting the time and work in. that is a fail before one even starts. and not doing the work necessary, hence i gotta figure this revolution is not serious.

[stevenleser]

52. That's exactly it. Democratic politics are about two things right now.

#1 - Prevent Republicans from gaining the Presidency and turning back all kinds of legislation and appointing Supreme Court Justices.

#2 - Working to take back the state legislatures so that when the redistricting happens after the 2020 elections, Democrats control it in as many states as possible and can ungerrymander the districts so that we have a hope of winning back the House in 2022.

That's where we are. Sometimes politics is just about preventing the other guys from doing destructive things. This is one of those times.

[seabeyond]

59. we have got to start focusing on state which i hear from clinton and omalley and is one of

the first reasons i started walking away from sanders

your post is right on. 2016 cannot be a time just to have a man in the white house shouting at the nation and congress what we want with no chance of it getting thru. as not earthshaking as what you are stating is, it is the reality we are living and a must for the election of 2016

[Armstead]

74. It's always about preventing the pugs from doing destructive things

And I agree with you on those two points.

But I differ on what the best way to achieve #1 is.

In addition, I believe there is a need for a different, more vigorous and positive progressive/liberal populist message (and actual goals) that are not the same old stale porridge that helped to give the GOP the upper hand over the last 30 years.

Whatever happens with Sanders cndidacy, he is pointing the way forward in that regard, at the very least, IMO.

[LeftOfWest]

93. Okay seabeyond

"not putting the time and work in. that is a fail before one even starts. and not doing the work necessary, hence i gotta figure this revolution is not serious."

Amarillo is it seabeyond?

How is the revolution you speak of going there, you are an activist right?

A very and always white city.

Remember it being Pan Tex fueled, literally and financially after the 6666 and Waggoners ran out of fuel.

What has changed?

For the revolution to be serious in Amarillo?

[Romulox]

71. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon..." nt

[Armstead]

29. Substitute the phrase "True Meaningful Reform"

There is something going on that transcends politics or Sanders or Clinton or all the usual political fun and games. People are fed up on many levels with the same stale status quo. They don't want to overturn the entire system. But they want a basic and meaningful degree of change and reform that will at least tip the scales back into some sort of balance.

The system has always been corrupt, and always will be to some extent. But the idea of liberal reform is intended to be a counterbalance. However over the last 30 years or so, that balance got way the fuck out of whack for a combination of reasons. And now we are headed to a New Gilded Age, in which a tiny sliver of the population has wealth far beyond the imagination, while an increasing percentage are struggling to stay afloat.

An increasing number of people are realizing that if we keep running around in the same circles, the overall direction will continue to be down for the average and/or disadvantaged majority.

They want change and reform to an extent that will bring things back into more of a balance.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Radical change to the status quo.

[seabeyond]

49. if anyone is actually serious, one has to start at the bottom, takes time and wont happen in an

election. so if everyone is serious, why am i not hearing a damn thing about local and state politics?

why in 2008 and now in 2016 do we leave all the fixin' to one man elected and how reasonable of an expectation is that?

[whatchamacallit]

37. I'm suddenly curious about your name...

[Ron Green]

38. I think I now understand the nature and purpose of your post.

You want to call out the "rainbow idealists" and show how political reality trumps all that nonsense. You've even got a couple of the usual world-weary types showing up to assist.
But you know, revolution is gonna happen no matter who gets elected, because the tipping point is nigh. Best we have a truth-telling President when it comes down.

[Renew Deal]

44. It has to do with this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128039775

I looked at the banner and wondered what it meant. I've seen the word revolution thrown around a lot the last few weeks and don't know what people are trying to say or if they've even given it much thought.

[Ron Green]

57. There has to be some branding and some emotionalism

or a movement won't get built. But the fact is a movement MUST get built or we're screwed. And not just more faux democracy, but a real involvement of people as citizens rather than consumers, and yes, even as spiritual beings in a crass and broken world.

[azmom]

62. Haven't you heard the latest meme.

Hillary folks are pragmatic, and the idealist Bernie folks will need to face reality.

[NCTraveler]

48. Revolution.

Driving to a Starbucks three blocks further than normal because another Sanders buddy is waiting there to talk shop. Revolution.

I just don't have many kind words for his supporters anymore. I say that knowing my favorite poster on this board is a Sanders supporter.

Reality is no one is a true revolutionary. Some have this love for the words democratic socialist and don't even know what it means. Some people are going to be really pissed off when they realize he is a capitalist with an in your face record to prove it.

[SamKnause]

83. I am a Bernie supporter.

I am 62.

As an avid coffee drinker I have never been to a Starbucks or had their coffee.

I use to drive past them on my way to and from work.

I live in rural Ohio.

I am dirt poor; below the poverty level.

P.S. I have never drove or owned a Volvo either.

[seabeyond]

84. their coffee sucks.... twice i have bought coffee there and neither time could i finish it. nt

[SamKnause]

85. I have always been too frugal with my

money to spend $4.00 for a cup of coffee.

I know I am in the minority, but I prefer instant coffee.

I don't like perked or drip coffee.

The secret to using instant coffee is always add boiling

water to the instant coffee.

All of my family and friends drink perked or drip coffee.

They all love my instant full flavored coffee.

The brand I use is McDaniel's.

A bar and restaurant I use to manage used the same brand for their

drip coffee machine.

We always got a lot of compliments on our coffee.

Have a great day.

[seabeyond]

86. i agree.

. I have always been too frugal with my

money to spend $4.00 for a cup of coffee.

the first time was well, the first time. i do not do the lattes ect.... just black coffee. and ya.... floored me the cost. the second was a meeting. i thought, surely this cup would be better.

and it wasnt.

interesting you instant coffee position. the only problem with that is it would not be automatic so i could crawl to it already made first thing in the morning. but i could see the advantage at different times. i will haev to give it a try.

and thanks sam, you TOO have a great day.

[SamKnause]

87. I use the microwave to boil my water.

I have a plastic container with a lid and pour spout that came with

an iced tea Mr Coffee machine.

It holds 8 cups.

When I make coffee for large crowds I use my 45 cup General Electric

coffee maker.

It specifically says that you can use ground or instant coffee.

I don't like Folgers coffee.

I think it has a bitter taste.

I like Maxwell coffee.

McDaniel's is on par with Maxwell but much cheaper.

Like you, I only drink black coffee.

I bet you could use instant in your machine.

[frylock]

91. Just another example of how mean and condescending that Sander's supporters can be..

oh, wait....

[CrispyQ]

50. We need a daily revolution & a local revolution.

We need those tens of thousands of people showing up for Sanders events to vote in every local election, including state, county & city level positions. You're lucky to find people who can name their two US Senators, much less their state reps! There's a reason the bumper sticker reads: THINK GLOBAL, ACT LOCAL.

We also need those tens of thousands of people showing up for Sanders events to write to their reps and senators every fucking week, not just when the market crashes. Every Congressional office should be swamped with hundreds of thousands of calls & emails from The People, every week. That's the only time they listen to us, when we overwhelm them.

Activism once every four years, or even every two isn't going to change a thing. I love Bernie, but until Americans want change badly enough that they engage in the system at every level, every day, nothing's going to change. Well, not for the better, anyway.

That's my 2¢.

[seabeyond]

58. not only vote. they have to run. sanders has been studying this long enough. if he is serious,

why isnt he putting a platform and organization together to get his supporters to be running locally and state, and other.... why isnt he actually creating a revolution? he isnt. he gets group of people and talks about what we would like that has no means or ability to be successful.

[CrispyQ]

65. You're asking a lot from a campaign that is financed by The People.

And the DNC hasn't helped either, ditching the 50 state campaign Dr. Dean started. WTF is with that?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-fundraising-donors-2016-campaign-119502.html

Working almost exclusively from his website, Sanders has raised about $8 million so far with an average donation of around $40 — impressive enough, given how little effort he’s made. But Sanders, who has been rising fast in recent early-state polls, is missing an opportunity to capitalize on his momentum with a restive progressive base that’s been without a standard-bearer since liberal icon Elizabeth Warren declined to run.

“I frankly don’t get the restraint. I don’t believe in unilateral disarmament,” said Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig, who said that some progressives and campaign finance reform advocates think Sanders is ruining his presidential chances by not having a super PAC. (Lessig famously founded a super PAC aimed at ending super PACs.)

...Sanders has raised about $8 million...

This article is about 2 months old, but still, HRC is laughing her ass off at this, no shit.

So the question is, can you have a superPac & still have a message that resonates with The People? It's so fucked up I really don't have much hope that anything except collapse will change it, & that's not exactly the change I want. So, don't worry, status quo dems, when all is said & done, I will likely vote for the sane candidate in 2016 & the country will continue along the same path it's on, at a lesser rate than the GOP would take it, but still in the same direction & more of The People will fall into the abyss.

There is going to come an election, soon, when climate will change the narrative of everything.

Good to see you on the boards!

[seabeyond]

68. he is asking a lot walking from the democratic party, supporting 15 hr, single payer, break up the

banks.

but... i DO like thinking this thru. and maybe not 2016, but if people are serious as they appear, and committed as they claim, why give up if it does not manufacture in 2016. it simple cannot happen with one man and one election. but we can do so much with a movement of the people that will take time. what is in a decade of actually putting the stuff in place to be successful.

it is an interesting thought. at least sanders has shown the outline of what we are capable. but i see.... that we the people will actually have to do the work, and i think that we can. a lot more pragmatic and realistic, and less idealistic or just flat out, ...... unrealistic.

i find this conversation fascinating and thought provoking. thanks for your info.

sanders too has a couple super pacs. it is what today is. tomorrow can be different.

and thank you crispy. i love seeing you on du and i get you are pro sanders, and feel strongly about your position. i DO respect you and your position.

[CrispyQ]

70. My friends are older & have adult children & I'm sad to say, most of them don't vote.

Their parents are extremely upset about it, but they are adults. These are people in their late 20s & 30s. I don't get it.

I don't write to my rep & senators as often as I should & really, why waste time writing to Cory Gardner at all, & if not for copy/paste, I wouldn't, lol. As badly corrupted as the system is, if Congress heard from a million people a week, it would make a difference. And just think if the non-voters would engage & hit the polls. It would make a difference. Democracy is not a spectator government. If Bernie can get people engaged, we could start a revolution.

What if each of us took 30 minutes a week & wrote a two paragraph letter about an issue or issues that concern us? Then copy-n-paste that text & email it to your rep & senators. Then, once every 6 weeks, grab the highlights of those emails & send a hard copy synopsis to each office. If we would do that, they would listen.

The people, united, cannot be defeated.

I believe they chanted that in Bolivia after their water was privatized.

[seabeyond]

72. when 2004 pulled for bush, i was flabbergasted and that point no longer tried with repugs.

that we had a nation in such poor shape, with such poor leadership and here in the panhandle, yes the repugs and fundies knew how bad bush was. they were embarrassed. and still they voted bush back. i felt they were even disappointed that he won.

2008. our nation was on the brink.

obamas grassroot of hope.

the repugs stood and said they would block every single vote.

that should have been the moment.

[Kenjie]

61. This is what I think when he says Revolution...

I'm sure there are some I will forget and there are some things that are few details on for now but it would mean that along with President Sanders and those that agree to help him we would work to...

On Social Justice
End people of color being killed, locked up, and treated unfairly.
Expand of rights for LGBT people.
Achieve equal pay and treatment for women.
Expand and protect the right to vote.
Repeal Citizens United and move toward public financing of campaigns

On Economic Justice
Implement major public works programs to repair our aging infrastructure and create millions of jobs
Phase in over the course of a number of years a minimum wage of $15 and hour
Provide paid parental leave
Guarantee at least two weeks paid vacation
Reinstate Glass-Steagall
Break up the too big to fail banks
Improve on the ACA by implementing a single payer health care system
Require the Wealthy to pay their share to keep the country going
Provide Free Tuition at Public Universities
Oppose TPP

On Environmental Justice
Oppose XL Keystone pipeline
Work for emissions reductions (Carbon tax and other measures)

I believe he calls it a revolution because for a very long time the things that matter in day to day life have been tilted to the favor of a small group of wealthy and powerful insiders. It might have been just as accurate to say he plans to change almost everything. Can it be done? I think so but there are key things that need to happen. First he would need to create a movement to work in a coordinated fashion on these issues. I think one of the biggest issues is campaign finance reform because without it the other issues will be much harder to make progress on.

I don't think all of these issues will be changed over night, and some of them we may not see in our lifetimes. As for your question about how would it be different than other socialist revolutions?

Well Sanders has stated that he looks to the Socialist Democracies of Scandinavia as part of his inspiration. While socialist has been a shunned term in our country I believe that things have gotten so bad under our current system that with some explanation, the word will be reclaimed much like the the term liberal has recently. Since we have a much different culture here than in Scandinavia some issues may need different strategies to implement. I can tell you this however, this Democratic Socialist revolution won't be anything like the Corporate Socialism that many of us have been left behind by.

[jonno99]

66. This...

[seabeyond]

69. chapman. fav. nt

[moondust]

67. A few specifics:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128039762

Sort of a peaceful revolution to basically deconcentrate the wealth.

I personally think a reasonable cap on inheritance would help restrain the out-of-control, psychopathic greed and formation of a more or less permanent caste system, but I don't know if Bernie has addressed that at all.

[Zorra]

75. Revolution in this context means replacing oppressive fascist oligarchy with

Last edited Wed Aug 19, 2015, 06:00 PM - Edit history (1)

benevolent social democracy, by subverting the electoral systems of oligarchy through mass grassroots participation of democrats in elections.

[arcane1]

76. He calls it a "political revolution" in every speech.

Seems rather self-explanatory

[seabeyond]

79. obama called it hope/change. day one, repugs stood and said they will block everything obama does.

so yes... to many of us, it does seem self explanatory and we are asking why you think 15 an hr, single payer, free college and breaking up the banks means a damn thing when obama could not get 10.20 an hour.

[arcane1]

80. So, we should only promote policies that republicans will allow?

That's called surrender.

[seabeyond]

82. what kind of reasonable reply is that to what i say? i get there is a faction here that likes to

fabricate clinton is a republican lite. factually, that is bullshit and wrong.

that is like what repugs argued so consistently back in 2004.

no to war in iraq.

so you want to allow the muslims to murder americans.

come on

[treestar]

107. It's not a battle

The way Congress works is not a military operation. If Republicans are in a majority of Congress, they have power. How can we surrender what we already lost? Maybe we should have gotten out and campaigned harder in the midterms.

See "Democracy" means what the people want, and the people wanted a Republican Congress. Good thing Obama is there or they would be getting more of what they want.

[MuseRider]

81. Wow, just read through this thread

and I gotta say, I give up.


I am taking my RED ball home and drinking myself to death.

Come on, WTF is the problem with people getting excited and trying to change things? It seems it can't be done here without a little side of red baiting and a lot of tossing around of unicorns and glitter?

You really want everyone to just drool and stay home because the not engaging, less exciting candidates who rarely even talk to people will certainly keep this blundering, plodding mess of a government firmly under control of Wall Street and the banks? Triangulation is fine folks, ya I know what they said but it really meant this! Remember, this is YOUR party and they will take care of you as long as you don't interfere and stop asking for stuff.

It takes a loooooong loooooooooooong time people. It will be decades of hard, boring work but don't worry yourselves just vote. We will do all the work. Now THAT is the ticket.

I believe you know exactly what kind of revolution is being talked about. You did not just fall off the turnip truck here.

Kids and even old and dull folks are excited about the running of our country, learning about the government and getting involved and all you can do is red bait and then others tell us we are just dumb glitter bugs looking for unicorns in the sky. I gotta wonder how some folks even manage to engage enough to get outta bed in the morning.

[PowerToThePeople]

88. Your corporate buddies get a kick out of your posts?

Trashing this troll post.

[rock]

89. It means "Evolution"

Nothing illegal or violent. Just change thru the Democratic process. Of course these are fanatics who are selling the product so they have to enliven the pitch!

[Truprogressive85]

90. This is what revolution means to me

a reversal of power

where the little guy fights back

Where the poor are not subjects of the rich

Where the police protect the people that pay their salaries instead of gunning them down in cold blood

Where tax dollars are used to build schools,roads,not going to war and supplying unknown rebels

Where unlimited dark money is not floating in our political system

Where people don't have to wait 5 hours to vote

Where the political class is held accountable for criminal actions

Where govt doesn't listen and collect people's phone records

[Shandris]

92. Always power.

It tops every list, even when we don't think to include it. Power. Ahhh, smell that sweet sweet smell of POW-AH! Except...you don't have power. 'The Little Guy' isn't going to get power because the little guy can't print his own CURRENCY. Who has currency has the world. Period. So there isn't going to be a 'power swap' and anyone who wants one is looking to murder his ideological opponents, not be a good human. That isn't change. That's just 'variety'. It's like a salad: you can swap out the toppings, but it's still a salad until you get rid of the lettuce, cheese, and dressing (or whatever staples you prefer in your salad, reader).

A member of either party talking 'Revolution' is terrifying only because they've been trained to hate the other side so much that any 'winner' (and I use the term loosely) will simply murder outright the losers. Yay, progress.

Currency. If your plan involves it, you've already lost.

Edit to add: To clarify, as I begin to look between the candidates, Bernie is closer to what I believe. I don't like the word revolution, though, because anyone talking that tripe is just looking to cause trouble and play games with power.

[Recursion]

94. To vastly over-simplify: a lot of people think that if someone appears on TV and speaks honestly

and angrily, then a very large group of politically disaffected people will find that this is the message they have looked for their whole lives, they will vote reliably and in large numbers for Sanders or his designee, and the politicians currently in office and those like them (for some value of "like them&quot will be swept away in the resulting landslide.

Less sarcastically, the belief is that Sanders can motivate a much, much broader constituency than the current Democratic coalition does, which will result in political solutions that are currently well outside the current possibilities. Whether that counts as a "revolution" is a definitional question and so not very interesting.

[treestar]

98. Yes. And it's quite immature.

It's a fantasy really. Everything can be as I want it if Bernie just becomes President. He'll then have the bully pulpit and all of Congress and all of the voters will start to agree with Bernie and me. I have to say it, that's immature. I thought like that at maybe 15.

Other people disagree with us and we have to get along with them without killing them. They really believe the things we can't believe they could possibly believe. Humans do not agree in lockstep. Conservatives are real. They are not going to change their minds due to Bernie.

If the OP thought Obama had this magical power, why would Bernie have it? He has about 1/100000000000000 the charisma of Obama.

[cherokeeprogressive]

99. Well you know...

We all want to change the world.

[liberal N proud]

101. Sounds dangerous

[KingCharlemagne]

108. "The Sanders people" - AKA: "I have here in my hands a list of 205

Sanders people . . . "

Pathetic. UNREC

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mccarthy-says-communists-are-in-state-department

[Renew Deal]

120. How would you like the Sanders supporters to be addressed?

"The people that cannot be named?" I didn't use anything disrespectful (bots, trolls, fanboys, etc.).

[KingCharlemagne]

121. You've created a strawman by conflating a rhetorical phrase from Sanders' stump speech with his

supporters' beliefs, all in the interests of insinuating that some vaguely nefarious plot exists by Sanders' supporters to overthrow American democracy and its traditions. AKA: red-baiting. AKA: McCarthyism. (McCarthy set the standard for the smear by insinuation.)

Sanders is always scrupulous to say 'political revolution.' What do you think he means?

Why don't you simply say 'Sanders supporters,' come to think of it?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

112. A reform that benefits the 99% not the 1% and putting the brakes on privatization

Hope turns into change.

Otherwise we are going to have all private schools, all private fire departments, private libraries, private roads, no Medicare, no social security etc.

[Vattel]

113. His revolution is not socialist. It is political.

It means moving away from oligarchy and towards democracy.

[davidpdx]

115. Turning the US into the USSR

[jeepers]

122. The battle that rages

Is between the oligarchs and the people to determine whether the voice of wealth and privilege
or the voice of the people will rule in America. This revolution is about the people finding their voice.

It is not a coincidence that the oligarchy of money and power, the republican party and the democratic leadership are aligned against Bernie and that the only support Sanders has is the voter.