Hold up, Lukie. Lock the bolt back and press the magazine release button. While I understand that one can definitely make a man mind, why resort to that when there's a better way forward? (You can always find a paper target for your NRA urges.) Currently, you could way more easily find 100,000,000 Americans to participate in a sit-in, than you could find the same number to participate in violence. Ten years from now; I dunno.
So, it all boils down to #1: "Stupidity". If Americans were only awake, they would realize that a 3rd party candidate could easily be elected.
Perhaps they haven't learned to look past the colorful sound bites to learn who they are really voting for. On the other hand, it might just be their sweet tooth that keeps them voting the same idiots in over and over again.
Better ask: who and why put those "idiots" in the Congress and the White House? When people decide primarily with their hearts they're likely to make mistakes and be disappointed. The solution: next time they should use their brains more, or even better: delegate their decisions to those who proved to have more brains than them.
lucrum:Violence will work. Always has and always will. Violence will work against us. We have millions of men under arms and millions of killing machines in the military. The men aren't the same type that were in there when we had the draft and military service was mandatory. These men are mercenaries who kill for pay. They have proved this for years, killing in foreign wars for crooked politicians and corporations. We wouldn't have a chance if we resorted to violence. If we could initiate the changes we need by massive sit-ins, then perhaps we should leave a percentage of the protestors in place. Kind of like the US does in other countries like Korea, Japan. I would help support financially those who remain and the first time the pres or the congress turns a dirty deal we swarm back in like a Tsunami. I think it could be done if we had any backbone.
they know and you know the 3rd party will never win,they need a no candidate,if enough people vote no,they give us new candidates,presently we are forced to take who they pick,its not an election
You're obviously assuming all the military would fight on the side of the government. Remember the fall of the USSR? The soldiers were simply unwilling to fire on their own people in defense of the tyranny. How about the middle east more recently, it was not uncommon for masses of armed forces to defect in favor of the protestors. If I'm not mistaken most our armed forces tend to be fairly conservative as a whole. Ergo they feel much the way I do about our leaders/government leading us to ruin. Given sufficient "critical mass" of protestors I believe, and have history to back me up, that the vast majority of our soldiers will not fire on their own friends, family and fellow countrymen. The rub is getting the minimum mass of protestors necessary that they can no longer be ignored and or labeled kooks.
There is no solution as long as: Around 50% of people pay no income taxes and vote to sustain. Many are on welfare and vote to sustain. Many are on food stamps and vote to sustain. Many get earned income credit and vote to sustain. Many are on extended unemployment and vote to sustain. Many vote based on emotion and will continue to do so. Many are informed by the biased press and will continue to doo so. IMHO As long as the group in Washington stays in control we are doomed unless something happens that is beyond the control of those gifted actors in Washington D.C. If anyone thinks that anything said,published or shown on T.V. was not a staged production during the late budget limit negotiations they are terminally naive. I know I have missed much but anything more is in my opinion just piling more dung on the dung heap,but feel free to add.