Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Someone on DU began talking about the inevitability of revolution. Why not revolution? [View all]marions ghost
(19,841 posts)6. Who says revolution means violence?
with Democracy in America on life support, it's hard to put much faith in the ideals of it all.
We have to salvage Democracy, and I don't think it can be done without revolutionizing the system.
Much different direction than fomenting senseless violence.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
49 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Someone on DU began talking about the inevitability of revolution. Why not revolution? [View all]
JDPriestly
May 2013
OP
Nah, the only thing that could prompt these gigantic asses off their couches would
Egalitarian Thug
May 2013
#21
The revolution was won in 2008. Why would anyone want to bring back Jeb Bush?
graham4anything
May 2013
#4
revolutions don't normally occur in places with extremely high standards of living like the US
arely staircase
May 2013
#10
Wrong as usual. John Hancock possessed considerably more wealth than Washington
Egalitarian Thug
May 2013
#26
according to this, washington was worth half a billion in today's dollars. still pretty rich.
HiPointDem
May 2013
#34
"one to make it...etc" is bullshit. do some genealogy of very wealthy families. the three
HiPointDem
May 2013
#36