What sort of revolution is it when

[MineralMan]

the revolutionary act is to go to the polls and vote? I searched for Bernie Sanders Revolution in the little google search box on DU. Lots of results turned up.

But how is it revolutionary to run as a Democrat in the primaries? Where's the revolution in taking part in our process of choosing the next President? We're having primary debates, discussing the candidates, going to campaign rallies and doing all the same things we've done for many, many decades.

Next year, we'll have some primary elections, then nominating conventions, all followed by a general election where either a Democrat or a Republican will be elected to serve four years as President.

So, where's the revolution in that?

Come the revolution...looks like things will be the same as they have been.

[Gregorian]

1. Why do you care?

[MineralMan]

5. Why do you ask?

[Gregorian]

23. Because it seemed like trivializing something very important.

I'd hate to think that the blood shed by people who fought to have rights was for nothing. The revolution is what happens before the vote.

edit- as I've read your responses to some posts below, it's clear that not everyone sees how perverted our systems have become. This is what has caused us to much trouble, from health to income. Gaming of our systems is our disease, and unless we want to remain unhealthy, we need to take quantum changes in our direction.. We know the problems; we have identified solutions, and now if we're intelligent we'll take steps to progress to a healthier society.

[MineralMan]

32. You think there will be blood spilled in this campaign.

I doubt that very much. We had a Revolution back in the 18th Century. This year, we'll be doing the very thing that Revolution brought into being - electing our own government at the polls.

That was a revolution. In 2016, we're having an election, not a revolution.

[Gregorian]

47. How is voting not a revolution?

If revolutionary ideas take shape, it's a revolution. Idiots use force.

I think the real trouble in understanding this may come from the complexity of the ideas involved. And fear of real change.

[MineralMan]

51. Voting is an orderly process of selecting leaders.

Revolutions use other tactics. Our elections are conducted according to our old Constitution, more or less. Having an election is not really a change of anything. We have them all the time. It's how we decide things here. We'll have elections next year, too, and in years after that as well.

[Ned_Devine]

60. You either do understand, but are being snarky, or you really don't get it.

Either way, I'll explain. Bernie Sanders represents a revolution from the same old ideas. People that like him and plan to vote for him find his ideas to be refreshing from what we've had in the past. Is the end result just getting people to the voting booths? Yes. What's revolutionary about it, or hopefully for the Sanders campaign, is that his ideas will ignite and inspire more voters that have been disinterested in the whole process because they don't feel like they're being represented.

That's just my take. Who knows? Maybe you already knew that and were just asking to be a dick as a way of undermining his campaign and the people that feel invigorated by it. I hope that's not the case though.

Brian

on edit: This is in response to the OP

[MineralMan]

63. No. He represents a horizontal shift and only in the way

campaigns are financed. You know that campaign finance reform can only be enacted by Congress, right. Even if Sanders refuses to accept campaign funds from corporations or refuses to cooperate with PACs, the only thing that will change is in how his campaign is financed. There will be nothing to prevent the Republicans from raising as much money as they can.

Unless there are changes in the laws that regulate election financing, there is no real change.

The net effect of Sanders not accepting adequate financing for his campaign will be that he loses the election. There won't be enough new voters due to his decision to make a difference in the outcome of the election.

[Ned_Devine]

68. Then I guess you're just being a snarky dick. It's pretty obvious that revolution is hyperbolic...

...and it's a way to get people excited. I've seen your posts and I know you're not a Bernie fan. This is a great way of marginalizing what a lot of people here believe in and has given them hope in the upcoming election. When I'm being a dick, and it can be quite often, I'll own up to it. Maybe you can too.

[MineralMan]

73. The best you can do is call me names?

Weak comeback.

[Ned_Devine]

74. I'm calling it like it is. You're being snarky in a dickish way. Almost bully-ish

[arcane1]

2. Considering how pathetic voter turnout usually is, yes, it's revolutionary to have high turnout.

Nobody ever said that running as a Dem is revolutionary. You made up that part to make the other part appear ridiculous.

[HerbChestnut]

3. Average voter turnout during Presidential election years is somewhere around 60%, and that might be

generous. On off years, it's somewhere between 30-40%. When Bernie talks about a Political Revolution, he wants increase the voter turnout substantially. He did it in Vermont. In the election after he first came to office, voter turnout nearly doubled. So, and this is just my own opinion, I think his plan is to win the Presidency and then win a majority of congressional seats in 2018 and 2020. His argument is that most people have become disillusioned with the political process, and he believes that he (and other progressive candidates) can bring them back into the fold.

[MineralMan]

8. I'm betting it will be the same in 2016.

[beerandjesus]

37. If Hillary wins the nomination, you're probably right.

[VanillaRhapsody]

55. It would have been Revolutionary if a Democratic Socialist could have gotten elected....

instead....he became a Socialist Democrat!

[mmonk]

4. Voting against the status quo and try and counter voting impediments.

[jeff47]

6. Yes, candidates have absolutely no positions.

They are only cartoon characters with one of two letters after their name.

[The River]

7. Start With the Fact

the winner may very well be an individual who got elected without
becoming a paid puppet of "big money". That would be rather revolutionary.

[MineralMan]

11. That's not a fact. It's a speculation.

Still no revolution there. If Bernie Sanders is elected, he'll move into the White House and try to get Congress to do stuff, just like every President. Was it a revolution when Barack Obama was elected twice to that office? I don't see revolutionary changes from his presidency, although he did get some good things done.

Aren't revolutions supposed to bring about major changes?

[The River]

38. I didn't say Revolution

I said revolutionary. I'm not interested in semantic food fights.
Of course it's speculation, I thought I made that clear by saying
"may very well be" But, if Bernie were elected without
corporate money, it would be rather revolutionary.

I wish Bernie had used some other word. A "Democratic Renaissance"
would have been a much better choice, imho. If you define revolution
as an armed insurrection to change a government, then no. There will be no revolution.
If you define it as a major change or a "turnaround", then yes, it would be.
(from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around&quot
Politics without the influence of corporate money would be a major change.

[misterhighwasted]

41. K & R.

Easy to demand from the campaign trail podium, shouting & fists waving, but it takes more diplomacy & negotiating skills to actually get this things passed when you're the sitting President.
I see zero of those positive critical skills in any of bernies appearances or speeches yet to date.

One can certainly shout their way to the presidency, but thats a usless skillset when the real difficult work of diplomacy needs to be done, as any past or present Leader will confess to.

Revolutionary sounds heroic, however it falls flat without that skillset to bring home the change .
Its then, just seen as no more than a shouting match for media attention.
OWS was outstanding. Its should have had a successful end with policy change.
Without the skills to take their concerns to tptb, it made the news, made a great point, but thats where it also ended.
The beginning of the revolution also needs the follow through. Skilled negotiating & diplomacy, & the smarts to maneuver policy through to success is sorely lacking with bernie sandees, to the point of nonexistant.
His lengthy congressional record is proof of that.

[MineralMan]

45. Exactly. When I look back on Obama's presidency,

I see him overcoming what must have been enormous frustration at the obstacles placed before him. His diplomacy and calm, cool strength got things done I didn't think would happen. Not as much as he would have hoped, I'm sure, but a damned good effort.

Being President requires much more than bluster. Bluster doesn't get much done when there is an oppositional Congress in session.

[840high]

78. ....x10+

[Comrade Grumpy]

9. So what? Do you have a point?

[MineralMan]

12. Apparently not one you see.

Sorry.

[NurseJackie]

10. Interesting.

You're absolutely correct, it's not truly a "revolution". But now I wonder, why do many of them choose to describe it as one?

Are they trying to generate enthusiasm among their supporters? Are they trying to instill fear into those who oppose them?

Does this actually work against them in the long run? In addition to motivating some like-minded individuals, are they actually creating an even stronger and more focused opposition?

Instead of making their opponents fearful, have they instead made potential allies think twice about joining a "revolution"?

Whatever they're hoping to accomplish, I think they're not having much success at it. (Do they have a plan-B?)

[MineralMan]

15. I suppose using the word "revolution" as part of the

rhetoric makes it seem more important, but I don't see the changes that are supposed to result.

Suppose Bernie Sanders got elected. He'd move into the White House and struggle with a Republican-controlled House and a Senate with a possible majority that could be easily blocked as we saw when Obama took office. Given the limited powers of our Presidents, I'm not seeing where a lot of changes would occur, frankly.

In reality, on most issues, his differences with Hillary Clinton's announced intentions are relatively minor, really. Either Democrat would be far better than any Republican in that office.

I suppose there are Executive Orders, but there are huge limitations in what can be accomplished with those. If either Democrat wins the election, there will be some changes, but most of them will be minor, unless Congress sends some "revolutionary" bills up for the President to sign. I'm not seeing those happening, though.

Revolutions are a big deal. Electing Bernie Sanders to be President might be evolutionary, but adding the "r" to that word makes a big change in the meaning. I don't think the possibilities justify that "r."

In any case, I'll be voting for the Democratic nominee, duly selected after the primary elections. That's what I always do.

[polly7]

13. You just said this over here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=790721

Yes, it IS revolutionary to challenge and change an election process funded by billionaires intent on ruling the planet.

To stop wars, feed the hungry in one's own country, stop horrific drug laws that leave families destitute, and on and on and on.

How pathetic to ho hum the incredible vision being shared by millions of people who seem to be yearning for 'change' and are emptying their wallets for him - as opposed to the status quo.

Tommy Douglas was revolutionary ......... many tried to paint him as a crazy, unimportant fool. One person's revolution is another's yawner. Is this the newest strategy?

[MineralMan]

16. Why yes, I did.

I'd gladly repeat it here. There's no revolution on the horizon. There won't be a revolution. Things will continue as they have been, and according to our Constitution.

You think there is going to be a huge increase in the number of voters coming to the polls? I'm betting you're wrong. At best, voter turnout will be about the same as in 2008, when the prospect of President Obama brought a lot of new voters to the general election. It was a good turnout. Will 2016 duplicate that excellent result? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Will the presidential election be financed differently in 2016 than in previous years? Not really. The Republicans, of course, will have full scale financing of PACs and the like. Clinton will too, if she is the nominee. Bernie? Well, who knows. If he doesn't finance his campaign adequately, the Republican is very likely to win. In fact, I'd predict that happening. That's why I'm supporting Clinton. I don't want a one-sided campaign in 2016.

I don't think there are enough "revolutionary" voters to defeat a well-financed Republican campaign. Not for a minute do I think that.

[polly7]

21. Well 'others' have HOPE and are willing to work and sacrifice for changing all the

things that are harming their own lives, communities, people in other nations, the planet. Scoff at them all you like. I think it's sad (for you).

[MineralMan]

65. I hope you have good luck with that.

I'll be voting for the Democratic nominee. If you can arrange it so that's Bernie Sanders, then he can count on my vote. I vote for the Democrat for that office every time. So, good luck with your goals.

[NurseJackie]

40. I'd have to disagree with the characterization that he's "ho-humming" it.

Characterizing it as a "revolution" is overselling it. It's trying too hard to make it into something that it's not.

The hype doesn't match reality.

It's like when someone hears Billy Mays or Vince Shlomi overselling the sham-wow. Then the buyer looks closer and realizes it's not much different than any other synthetic chamois cloth. Perhaps it's slightly better, but by overselling it, the consumer expects much more than they actually get, and thus the disappointment. (Yes, it does hold 10% more water, but it didn't do any actually make my old car look new, and it didn't make cleaning a joy.)

[polly7]

43. Yes, he's ho-humming it. Feel sad for him. nt.

[Capt. Obvious]

50. Well who doesn't like to put every thought into an OP?

Why confine it to the relevant thread?

[polly7]

53. Yeah, that I don't understand. nt.

[Capt. Obvious]

54. I mean, someone might not have seen the post in the original thread

Can't have that.

[polly7]

56. Ok, gotcha.

Agree.

[think]

14. Iceland understands. Maybe someday you will too....

Iceland sentences 26 bankers to a combined 74 years in prison

James Woods | October 21, 2015

Unlike the Department of Justice, Iceland is focusing on prosecuting the CEOs rather than low-level traders.

In a move that would make many capitalists’ head explode if it ever happened here, Iceland just sentenced their 26th banker to prison for their part in the 2008 financial collapse.

In two separate Icelandic Supreme Court and Reykjavik District Court rulings, five top bankers from Landsbankinn and Kaupping — the two largest banks in the country — were found guilty of market manipulation, embezzlement, and breach of fiduciary duties. Most of those convicted have been sentenced to prison for two to five years. The maximum penalty for financial crimes in Iceland is six years, although their Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments to consider expanding sentences beyond the six year maximum.

After the crash in 2008, while congress was giving American banks a $700 billion TARP bailout courtesy of taxpayers, Iceland decided to go in a different direction and enabled their government with financial supervisory authority to take control of the banks as the chaos resulting from the crash unraveled.

Back in 2001, Iceland deregulated their financial sector, following in the path of former President Bill Clinton. In less than a decade, Iceland was bogged down in so much foreign debt they couldn’t refinance it before the system crashed.

Almost eight years later, the government of Iceland is still prosecuting and jailing those responsible for the market manipulation that crippled their economy. Even now, Iceland is still paying back loans to the IMF and other countries which were needed just to keep the country operating.

Full article:
http://usuncut.com/world/iceland-sentences-26-bankers-to-a-combined-74-years-in-prison/

[MineralMan]

18. Oh, dear.

Iceland has a national population of about 323,000. About the same as Minneapolis, MN. Don't you suppose things might be a bit different there than in a country with 50 diverse states and 1000 times the population?

The United State is nothing like Iceland. Not even close.

[think]

19. Of course not. Here Hillary gives speeches to banks that break laws and rakes in millions

While the CEO's become billionaires. Way different...

[MineralMan]

48. I think you missed my point, there.

[think]

58. Let's see. Iceland can deal with bank crimes because it's a small country. Eric Holder couldn't do

the job because America has 50 states and a 1000 times more people.

Did I miss anything?

Democratic Senator Carl Levin quote:

“Our investigation of the origins of the financial crisis revealed wrongdoing and failures among mortgage lenders, banking regulators, credit rating agencies and investment banks. One of those investment banks, Goldman Sachs, created complex securities that included “junk” from its own inventory that it wanted to get rid of. It misled investors by claiming its interests in those securities were “aligned” with theirs while at the same time it was betting heavily against those same securities, and therefore against its own clients, to its own substantial profit. Its actions did immense harm to its clients, and helped create the financial crisis that nearly plunged us into a second Great Depression.

“Those are the facts the subcommittee found. Whether the decision by the Department of Justice is the product of weak laws or weak enforcement, Goldman Sachs’ actions were deceptive and immoral. "

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billsinger/2012/08/10/senator-levin-slams-department-of-justices-inaction-against-goldman-sachs/

[think]

64. And it sure doesn't help when the Govt allows laws to be changed for felony banks

Did these laws need to be rewritten for felony banks because we're too big compared to Iceland?:

When are felonies not felonies? When banks do them

By gjohnsit - Wednesday Aug 12, 2015

Three months ago Obama's Justice Department accomplished a milestone: It managed to get felony pleas from Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland, the biggest banks in Wall Street.

However, looks can be deceiving.

Besides the criminal label, however, nothing much has changed for the banks. And that means nothing much has changed for the public. There is no meaningful accountability in the plea deals and, by extension, no meaningful deterrence from future wrongdoing...
As a rule, a felony plea carries more painful consequences. For example, a publicly traded company that is guilty of a crime is supposed to lose privileges granted by the Securities and Exchange Commission to quickly raise and trade money in the capital markets. But in this instance, the plea deals were not completed until the S.E.C. gave official assurance that the banks could keep operating the same as always, despite their criminal misconduct.

A felony guilty plea without actual punishment is a travesty of justice. But the Obama Administration hasn't stopped grovelling before Wall Street yet.

With the blessing of the White House and the Justice Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is attempting to sneak through a major policy change that would enable big banks convicted of felonies to continue lending through a federal mortgage program, according to federal records and government officials.
The housing agency wants to quietly delete a requirement for lenders to certify they haven’t been convicted of violating federal antitrust laws or committing other serious crimes. HUD proposed the move on May 15, without detailing the reasoning behind the change.

This rule change proposal happened at almost the same time as the "felony" pleas by the big banks.

The rule change was largely ignored until Rep. Maxine Waters of California and Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts brought it to public attention in recent weeks..

Read more:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/12/1411362/-When-are-felonies-not-felonies-When-banks-do-them

[NCTraveler]

22. Many don't understand the union of states and mess it can appear to create.

Some truly aren't able to picture the beauty of the constitution, what it helped to create, and how sloppy so much of it is.

[think]

25. And some ignore Wall Street entanglements and make condescending remarks while ignoring the obvious

[NCTraveler]

28. Correct. Some will. nt.

[think]

31. You're doing a great job of it.

[NCTraveler]

35. I appreciate the compliment.

Have a wonderful day. You have left me on cloud nine!!!!!

[think]

44. Thanks for your kind words also

[AgingAmerican]

17. The Revolutionary act is not to vote

It is to break away from the 'pay to play' system we have now. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening.

[MineralMan]

24. About 131 million people voted in 2008.

That was a pretty good year for turnout. So, how many more than that do you think will turn out in 2016 if Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee?

How many will be dedicated enough to this "revolution" to vote when they hadn't bothered to in the past, and what percentage of the total vote will they make up?

Elections are a numbers game. Count the voters. Obama won fairly handily, but not in a landslide, really. We know how many people have donated to the Sanders campaign, about 750,000. They'd probably all turn out, I'd think. But thats just 0.5% of the total vote from 2008. Not enough to swing an election, really. Even if 10 times that many (7.5 million) turned out it would only be 5% of the vote.

See, I'm not seeing the numbers there, really. Regardless of who is the Democratic nominee, I'll be there voting for the Democrat, so my vote doesn't count as an added vote. I'll gladly vote for Bernie if he is the nominee.

[AgingAmerican]

30. The 'revolution' is not about turnout

[MineralMan]

34. Several people in this thread have said that high turnout

would be the revolution, so I'm responding to that. Is high voter turnout a revolution? I don't think so. It's just a good turnout for an election. Obama had a high turnout. I don't think anyone though that was a revolution, though.

[AgingAmerican]

52. You say it in your OP

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on.

[NCTraveler]

20. Revolution is a rallying cry, not a revolution.

Seriously, a bunch of well to do white people yelling revolution does a revolution not make. Have you seen photos of his events. Some in the parking lots before or after. Notice the cars, clothes, designer items. Revolution is a rallying cry.

[MineralMan]

27. Exactly. There's no revolution.

It's just our normal political process, proceeding as usual. In November of next year, we'll elect a new President. That's not a revolution of any kind. We already had one of those to set up our system, and it will still be working as usual.

[NCTraveler]

33. What is really sad is they are the same exact ones ignoring the true revolution going on.

I would argue that BLM and the AA community have started a revolution. It has had an enormous effect on this election, the media, and local municipalities all across the country. It is a true revolution and they don't see it. They are more concerned about the Volvo revolution. Sorry for being so condescending with that remark when I know you try to avoid that. I just find the whole revolution thing with Sanders supporters to be offensive when we are watching a true revolution in this country.

[MineralMan]

42. I remember the amazing turnout in 2008, when the AA community

came to vote in record numbers. I was a poll observer in that election. It was wonderful. I don't remember thinking it was revolutionary, though. It was people responding to Barack Obama as the candidate. The election went pretty much as it always does. We won, too.

I do think that awareness is being raised very nicely though, right now, but I don't think it has to do with the election. Another major change was when LGBT citizens were finally able to marry in every state. That didn't have much to do with an election, either. Those are social changes that came about because people demanded them.

Oddly enough, in more than half the states, marriage equality happened due to the SCOTUS, a bastion of old conservatives, saw the writing on the wall and did what they should have done long before. No election. No revolution. Just a long-needed change.

[leftofcool]

26. What revolution?

[MineralMan]

29. That's what I'm trying to figure out.

I'm not seeing it.

[polly7]

39. Lack of vision, or perfectly happy with the status quo? nt.

[leftofcool]

57. The 60's. Now that was a "real" revolution.

We did so many good things and some bad, but we got much changed. I'm not seeing that today. Millennials too busy with IPADS and selfies I suppose.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. A voter's revolution?

The sexual revolution was often comprised of the simple act of being one's self. Revolution comes in many forms always to the panic of the conservatives.

[ibegurpard]

46. let me know if you find any lint in your navel

[whatchamacallit]

49. Whoosh!

The revolution in this case is a coming together to buck the corrupt establishment system and elect, against the nearly insurmountable ptb opposition, a genuine progressive.

[ieoeja]

59. Glad to hear the Reagan Revolution never happened.

But then what explains how our streets and parks filled up with the homeless?

What happened to the summer work programs for teenagers that my city friends had when we were young?

Why did the federal government stop giving block grants to big cities which lost their money to White flight and to small towns which were never able to afford the needs of a town in modern society?

So many things seem to have changed in a drastic fashion. If only there were a name for that.

[ljm2002]

71. +100000!!! n/t

[aikoaiko]

61. Depends on what you mean by revolution.

A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around&quot . YMMV.

Revolutions can involve the complete purging of existing structure or it can involve significant modification. Bernie is trying to modify the way a president is chosen and a government is led by rejecting corporate money and depending on the people.

[tularetom]

62. Are you some sort of agent provocateur?

Trying to goad Sanders supporters into coming out of the closet and revealing their inner Bolsheviks?

Or do you sincerely believe that some kind of messy revolution is necessary for any meaningful change to take place in 21st century America?

Because you don't seem very enthused about the prospect of going to the polls and voting for whichever Democrat gets nominated.

[MineralMan]

66. No. I'm a Democrat who wants a Democrat in the

White House in 2017. I have never in my life missed an election. Any election. Even school board elections. Of course I'll be there, voting for the Democratic candidate, whoever that is.

I'm always enthused about voting. It's a non-revolutionary act that has served our nation pretty well over the years. I'd fight to preserve my right to vote.

There is no revolution. There will be no revolution in 2016, either. It's a massive overstatement to call Bernie Sanders' candidacy a revolution. He's just running for office. He'll have my vote in the unlikely even he's the nominee.

[The River]

69. I Wonder The Same Thing

every time I read one of his posts.
He is about the only Hill Shill that I don't have on ignore.
I guess it's because we're both cranky old white men with
Minnesota Roots. Familiarity breeds curiosity I suppose.
Like rubber-necking at a car crash and it happens to involve the
same make, model and color car that you drive, but isn't you.

Being a cranky old white man, I realize I don't
have as much "skin" in the game as those under 30 or 40.
I'm set for life regardless of who wins. I don't really care.
I'm supporting Sanders because the future belongs to the young
and the system needs to change, for their sake.

Being old doesn't necessarily us wise. When it
comes to voting about the future, we would be wise
to consider that younger generations will have to live with
the consequences of our vote, long after we're dead and gone.
Our personal issues and hang-ups involving race, gender, religion or other
consideration should come second to the question about whats
best for our Country.

I just can't see where "more of the same" is the right answer.

[ljm2002]

67. Bernie talks about a "political revolution"...

...which he does precisely to distinguish it from a violent revolution.

Revolution:

1.
an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
2.
Sociology. a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.
3.
a sudden, complete or marked change in something

(etc)

Bernie's ideas are revolutionary when compared to those of the other Democratic contenders, given that he advocates (a) single-payer health care, (b) tuition-free higher education at all public institutions of higher learning, (c) getting rid of private prisons altogether, (d) radical action on the climate, (e) a job-creating infrastructure program, and much more.

None of his ideas are achievable without strong and committed support from a large part of the population. If he is able to pull it off, then his election and subsequent term(s) in office would be revolutionary. Of course, that is a very big "if"! But there is no reason at all that voting cannot produce revolutionary results, as it has in many countries over the years, including ours from time to time (New Deal, anyone?).

If you are trying to hang onto the word "revolution" and imply that it must mean a violent overthrow of the government, then you are simply wrong.

[Buzz cook]

70. The American elections have been called revolutions

Since the election of 1800. So the OP is pretty much making a rhetorical point.

Revolutions are also not confined to the political. The woman's rights movement went beyond a political frame work as did the gay rights movement. Both could be called revolutionary.

Making fun of Sanders supporters because they don't fit a narrow definition of a term is not helpful.

[PowerToThePeople]

72. Since you are not part of it

You will just have to wait and see.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. It is the kind of revolution where everyone gets

off your lawn.

You in?

[Bonobo]

76. Voting can indeed be a revolutionary act. It depends on who you vote for.

This is an unusually stupid OP.

[Vattel]

77. I think Bernie has made it clear that no president can accomplish what he wants to do.

It will require a political revolution where enough citizens decide to radically change the system, to take power away from the oligarchs to establish a system that works for the people.

His revolution is not about him being elected. it is about enough people sharing his ideas that oligarchy is replaced by true democracy.

[Ron Green]

79. Bernie's election would be only the first step.

The revolution comes when people take back their towns and neighborhoods from those entities who have been extracting wealth from them for years. It comes when people vote up and down ballots for honest politicians who have a vision of human-based systems over profit-based ones. It comes when there's a steady voice from the White House reminding us that people who create no wealth but instead put a claim on real wealth will not be given free rein to cheat the people.

The revolution is not likely at all, because most people don't know anything about how it must come about, and because people like you continue to make snarky and hair-splitting posts like this OP. You seem to be an intelligent person; I don't know why you're pursuing this goofy path to be on the winning side, when you could do some work on the better side.

[Renew Deal]

80. I asked the same question a while ago

And yes, the answer seems to be voting.