Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Morrigi]

Training to use all of those, something to use them on that's going to actually do something, an end-goal, substantial public support, infrastructure to keep you supplied with all of that, somewhere to hide, the list goes on. Asymmetric warfare is a hell of a lot more than getting Billy and some bombs (never mind not getting yourself killed making those IEDs or "liberating" those anti-tank weapons) and going out and trying to kill people.

That kind of question is one of the reasons I would expect a US grown guerrilla movement to die before it lived

1. Training

Hardly an issue, especially given the millions of military veterans in the country, many of whom are disgruntled with the way the country is heading.


2. End goal

Restore the Constitution, that's the rallying cry, anyway.


3. Public support

Only a third of the population supported the first Revolution. If things keep going the way they are, I doubt that's too far away.

4. Infrastructure

Always a problem for any irregular force, but the country as a whole has plenty of it, and there are a lot of stockpiles of ammunition being built up by individuals, at least. I would also be entirely unsurprised if Russia decided to arm the rebels for shits 'n giggles.

5. Somewhere to hide

In plain sight, of course.

[alexandertnt]

I don't see how the constitution is supposed to unite people when so many people seem to have differing opinions on its meaning.

Some people interpret it literally, others more figuratively. Some interpret it in the context of the 17 century (or whenever it was created), others in the context of the 21 etc.

As a non-American, the whole constitution thing is a very foregn concept to me. When I ask other Australians on their opinion of the Australian Constitution, most people's answer is "We have a constitution?". New Zealand doesn't even have a constitution.

[LordSlowpoke]

constitutions are from places drawing from the french revolution, to put it simply

it's important to have one

but not one that's over two damn centuries old

but then, who would trust the americans to write a new one in this day and age

[Reelya]

That's not really what Constitutions are for. They're a legal document that limits the executive powers.

The Feel-good stuff in the preamble, etc, is just fluff.

btw the first French constitution was in 1791, and was influenced by the American constitution of  1788, not the other way around.

The basis of the American constitution is actually English law deriving from the Magna Carta.

[Sergarr]

I'd say it failed hard at limiting the executive powers in USA. Probably because of the whole "we need world-wide surveillance to fight terrorism!" thingie.

[Reelya]

Well constitutions fail at preventing things the writers couldn't have thought of. e.g. "worldwide X" isn't in the constitution because it doesn't cover things outside the USA. And in 1788 they couldn't really conceive of electronic surveillance nor international terrorism.

[Helgoland]

btw the first French constitution was in 1791, and was influenced by the American constitution of  1788, not the other way around.

The basis of the American constitution is actually English law deriving from the Magna Carta.

Isn't that weird? Not updating a prototype, not making used of the experiences and mistakes of other countries, because 'MURRICA?

[Morrigi]

btw the first French constitution was in 1791, and was influenced by the American constitution of  1788, not the other way around.

The basis of the American constitution is actually English law deriving from the Magna Carta.

Isn't that weird? Not updating a prototype, not making used of the experiences and mistakes of other countries, because 'MURRICA?

There is a process to amend it, which has been successfully used 27 times. Thing is, you need a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate, and a 3/4 majority of the states to ratify it, for it to become law. This is to prevent partisan and/or authoritarian bullshit that no one wants to find its way into the constitution, and it's worked quite well.

Also, the real prototype to the Constitution were the Articles of Confederation, which made payment of taxes to Congress by each state voluntary, among other things. Didn't turn out very well, so it was entirely rewritten.

And, to people who say it's outdated, what makes you think that? In practice, the United States, under our Constitution, has been a superpower for the better part of a century. The only problem these days, post-9/11, is that it's being ignored by those in power, largely because the "news" media outright refuses to report on those issues objectively. Bread and games...

[10ebbor10]

The fact that the US is a superpower has less to do with the Constitution and more with the fact that it's the size of a small continent.

[alexandertnt]

Europe having much of it's industry blown up during the World Wars helped a bit as well.

[RedKing]

^^ Those.

People crack me up when they act like the US Constitution is holy writ. Or that we're the only country with one. American exceptionalism at its derpiest.

Also:

I would also be entirely unsurprised if Russia decided to arm the rebels for shits 'n giggles.

Morrigi confirmed for Russian-backed separatist. Drone strikes authorized.

Seriously...look back at what you wrote and tell me you don't sound like somebody who should be on an FBI watch list.

I get it, I do. These little Turner Diaries type fantasies of armed overthrow of an elected government are how y'all blow off steam and they're mostly harmless mental masturbation. Mostly. Until you get that McVeigh brand of nut who doesn't realize that this is all just a big joke and actually starts blowing shit up.

Liberals who feel powerless and discontented organize marches and sit-ins.
Conservatives who feel powerless and discontented have communal wet dreams about starting a second American Civil War.

[Cthulhu]

Spoiler: Liberals never have communal revolutionary wet dreams. (click to show/hide)

[GavJ]

It is possible to "overthrow" capitalism, however, without bloody revolutions.

Personally, I only think a bloody revolution is necessary if you're trying to do it too soon (e.g. USSR). Unlike the cartoon character implies, it's not the global conversion that's the main barrier so much as it is not having achieved a level of technology so far where high standards of living, health, food, decent entertainment, communication, transit, etc. can all be maintained with little or no labor.  We weren't there when the USSR formed, nor are we there today.

But eventually (probably not too long) when we reach that level of technology, then the only purpose of laboring will be propping up a laundry list of unnecessarily stupid luxuries. Like for instance, owning some new kind of oven that cooks stuff in 30 seconds instead of 5 minutes and costs $20,000, or having serpentine green marble tabletops in your kitchen instead of granite, etc.

The USSR took on as its major symbols icons of labor, but I think this actually is an excellent reflection of it's fatal flaw: it shouldn't have been attempted in a world where labor was still necessary to meet needs. Before you try to do something like that, you should already be at the point where LABOR ISN'T NEEDED anymore.

Your defining symbols shouldn't be labor-based, they should be art and learning and leisure-based, because those would be the proper defining characteristics of an actual functional communist society.





As we approach that point, it is likely to become increasingly obvious to people that they don't need to be working as much as they are, and they can slowly just shift to less consumerist behaviors.

We are already seeing examples of this with the surging "sharing economy."  Capitalism tolerates it, because the organizing companies involved are still companies with shareholders, etc. But it still decreases bloat and starts chipping away at assumptions in people's minds about what they actually need to own.

I think it will still be limited by technology for awhile longer, but once it isn't, sharing economy is the sort of trend that can naturally flow right into what is effectively a form of communism, supported by an already-converted culture without really any need for bloodshed. At most, an administrative coup, and if lucky, merely leveraging pre-existing mechanisms for changing laws and constitutions.

[Frumple]

Huh. So, uh. We apparently have a nation-wide fast food worker strike going on? Not quite sure about how many numbers, but this notes it's apparently happening in 150 different cities. Also apparently arrests for traffic blocking during the protests

[misko27]

Dear Mr President,

You have made yourself the Trustee for those in every country who seek to mend the evils of our condition by reasoned experiment within the framework of the existing social system. If you fail, rational change will be gravely prejudiced throughout the world, leaving orthodoxy and revolution to fight it out.

I'm confused and not sure how relevant this is, but why not.