Your video, Bernie Sanders...The Revolution Has Just Begun, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

If I believed it would have that effect, I could support that.
Unfortunately, I don't believe Americans would ever get off our swollen asses, turn off our TVs, and actually DO SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE, even while our country disintegrates around us.
And even if we could manage it, we are so fractured as a society, the end result at best would be somewhere between 4 and 50 new countries, most of them with despotic leaders and draconian theocracies, and all born from a devastating civil war. There no way in hell we could manage to have a revolution that ends with a single, unified country.

In reality, what's more likely to happen if he's elected is a few large protests that get broken up violently with many protesters 'disappearing', new harsh anti-protesting laws, and President for Life Trump will become the richest man in the world while we become a third world country, bringing the world economy into the toilet with us, which is what the Economist warned against when they just listed him in the top 15 most pressing dangers to the world, ranking a Trump presidency just as dangerous to the planet as fundamentalist terrorism.

I'd agree, but every time a President gets into office, no matter WHAT they've promised, no matter WHAT is technically possible for a president to do, they all get pulled back to within spitting distance of what "The Money" says to do.

President Donald Trump MIGHT have a bunch of money, he MIGHT technically be able to choose what he wants, but when "The Money" tells him that it's going to ruin him because he has no control over HIS money as president, he'll tow the line just like everyone else. He won't be any better, worse, effective or ineffective than any other president.

Hell, I doubt Sanders would be able to do anything, either.

Your country needs another revolution. It's not England this time, you've seen the enemy, and he is you.

When Baron Von Steuben was asked about the colonial troops he'd trained during the American Revolution, he wrote, "‘The genius of this nation is not in the least to be compared with that of the Prussians, Austrians, or French. You say to your [European] soldier, “Do this,” and he doeth it, but I am obliged to say, “This is the reason why you ought to do that,” and he does it.’”

That, in a nutshell, is what it means to be an American. We'll do it, but first you have to explain yourself. Of course, that can be trained out of them, but it's a lot harder than you'd think.

Trump lives matter.
Samantha Bee should go to a Trump event and get trumped by the fans.






Let’s dip into the rhetoric of a garden-variety Black Lives Matter march that I observed last November on Fifth Avenue in New York City. It featured “F**k the Police,” “Murderer Cops,” and “Racism Is the Disease, Revolution Is the Cure” T-shirts, “Stop Police Terror” signs, and “Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Racist Cops Have Got to Go” chants.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432800/donald-trump-rhetoric-black-lives-matter-just-bad

There are some things I disagree with in this video that are debatable, and things I agree with, but the fact about how Sanders polls against Trump or Cruz compared to Clinton is ridiculous.

He's completely ignoring the fact that most voters don't even know Sanders is a socialist yet, or generally much about any of the candidates. Most know that Hillary is Bill's wife, Bill got head when he was president, there are controversies surrounding them (most cooked up, a few have some legitimacy, not that the average voter knows the difference), and she was Secretary of State under Obama. If they know who Sanders is, he's that old guy who has some good points about how government and Wall Street are corrupt.

The poll numbers provided won't matter in a general election by the time that occurs. They could be more in Sanders' favor, against him, or what they are now, but what they currently are now won't have much to do with that. Polls change this far out from the general election.

If you want the chance at a more impactful significant economic and political revolution at the cost of an increased chance that Trump, Rubio, or Cruz will win, support Sanders. If you want to decrease the chances of Trump, Rubio, or Cruz winning the general election, but you understand it's going to be more of maintaining the status quo by doing so, support Clinton.

Call a space a spade at least.

Huh, never thought of that. So true...and I will add to this. In the past jobs in service have been able to absorb people into it to take up the loss of jobs (Say in agriculture and such.) So when Henry Ford made his assembly line, jobs were created pretty much everywhere. Restaurants are but one great example of this.

But with the techno revolution, the service sector was already pretty full. Now it is saturated. If I see one more new gas station down here in Florida, or another restaurant open, it will be too soon. I remember TWO, TWO Starbucks in the same mall. Such a false economy...

Now add automation and boom...

Actually, look at the other parts of the world that have begun using the revolution to make more production for themselves and trade. All those people that have been displaced from their jobs (Which were horrible pay/conditions) are still without ANY job. Crime is the result. I forget which deviance book for my classes had that information, but the stats of the newly unemployed who are committing violent acts was very...disturbing.

This isnt about the change new technology brings. You can welcome the Digital Age or you can condem it. Doesnt matter. What matters that things WILL change. Very drastically in a small amount of time. A LOT of stupid, boring, menial jobs will soon vanish. Which is a good thing, but what to do with all this people who worked on those jobs?

Our wealth is based on us buying lots and lots of new things. Things and services. For that, we need money. We work to get that money. But if more and more jobs vanish, you cant just wait and hope for the best. You have to somehow counter that loss of expendable income.

What method you use or what combinations will be effective ... time will tell. But relying on the Invisible Hand of God (err ... The Free Market) and making the already super rich even more rich will NOT work.

As i said ... in Davos more and more influental people finally agree that something has to be done, because those job losses and economic changes will happen. Very fast. This is not a slow process like changing from hunter/gatherer to farming. Even the Industrial Revolution took several generations to finally establish itself. The Digital Revolution, in combination with a more and more intertwined, globalized world will change our lives in a matter of only a few decades.

I'm really not sure about that. The agricultural and industrial revolutions didn't exactly have that effect, it just moved jobs from one place to another right? I mean, my job almost didn't exist 10 years ago. Not saying there is no challenge, but the elimination of thankless menial labour has to be a good thing overall no? I'm more worried that our slaves are finite resources that will need replacing eventually, one hopes not with the human variety.

You wouldn't like my resolution.

Course main reason majority of Americans are against it is our culture and heritage. Americans have never ran. During British rule we didn't run to Louisiana territory begging Spain or France to accept refuges. We took up arms and bled for our land. Patriotism is not bad as political correctness morons try to push.

That's why for us, or many of us, refugee makes no sense. And our forefathers even exclaimed if any Americans became refugees they deserved no country, our creed "give me liberty or give me death!" The 2nd amendment left behind by our founders to ensure a free society.

"We need a revolution every 200 years, because all governments become stale and corrupt after 200 years. " - Benjamin Franklin

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

The word refugee makes absolutely zero sense to Americans. At least me being Generation X and all my generation and older. You do not run you die fighting. The beginning of the Revolution Americans didn't have hardly any weapons, it was sabotage and terrorism and the capture of gun stockpiles by militias the armed the beginning, then France helped supply us.

They should right, but the proof is they are not refugees! That's media political correctness lies. Just as said in that video
Quote by Muslim - "this isn't refugees, this is invasion"
They use political correctness as a shield to get in.

Hahaha... seriously, what kind of passive aggressive bullshit is that? "Ignoring the theoretical underpinnings of socialism, because I've decided that that's waffling, I say Jesus was a socialist." Next time, maybe just write TL;DR and make a farting noise while rolling your eyes.

You can't dismiss the actual meaning of the word Socialist as 'semantics', if you're talking about whether or not something is socialist. That doesn't help the discussion.

In order to use socialism as you appear to be doing, you would have to first:
- ignore the history of socialism and its political development,
- ignore the entire body of academic work, current and past, on socialism, and
- ignore how the word socialism "IS used now, like it or not" in actual socialist or semi-socialist countries

By doing that you end up at your definition of the word, yes. But you had to take a pretty long detour to get to that point

Marx's quote on religion is pretty straightforward - it can be, as you say, open to interpretation, but it's generally agreed that he didn't say that your Jesus was a stand-up socialist. He is more commonly taken to mean that religion is a false response to the real suffering of the oppressed; religion provides a fiction of suffering and a fiction of redemption/happiness, that will never translate into real change. It makes the oppressed feel like they are bettering their lives, while actually keeping them passive and preventing them from changing anything.

The slightly larger context of the quote is this: "Das religiöse Elend ist in einem der Ausdruck des wirklichen Elendes und in einem die Protestation gegen das wirkliche Elend. Die Religion ist der Seufzer der bedrängten Kreatur, das Gemüth einer herzlosen Welt, wie sie der Geist geistloser Zustände ist. Sie ist das Opium des Volks."

I don't know how to make that more plain, but I can try. Religious suffering is on one hand a response to real suffering (wirkliche Elend, by which one would mean a materialistically determined actual lack of freedom, resources, physical wellbeing, etc), but it is also a false reaction against that real suffering. Real oppression creates suffering to which there could be a real respones, but religion instead substitutes in false suffering and false responses - it tries to tackle real suffering with metaphysical solutions. He goes on to say:

"Die Aufhebung der Religion als des illusorischen Glücks des Volkes ist die Forderung seines wirklichen Glücks."

This, too, seems pretty straightforward to me, but you might see 4 or 5 different things there. Religion teaches the people an illusory form of happiness, which doesn't actually change or even challenge the conditions of suffering, and must therefore be tossed out, for the people to ever achieve real happiness.

A fundamental difference here is that religious goodness is internally, individually, and fundamentally motivated. 'Good' is 'Good', and you as a Christian individual should choose to do Good. A goal of Marxism is to abolish that kind of fundamentalism and replace it with continuous criticism; creating a society that always questions, together, what good is, through the lens of dialectical materialism.

You might recognize this line of thinking* from what modern Europeans call the autonomous left wing, or what Marx and Trotsky called the Permanent Revolution, which Wikipedia helpfully comments on as "Marx outlines his proposal that the proletariat 'make the revolution permanent'. In essence, it consists of the working class maintaining a militant and independent approach to politics both before, during and after the 'struggle' which will bring the 'petty-bourgeois democrats' to power." Which sounds great, except it can also lead to purges, paranoia, and informant societies.

My entire point is that socialism and Christianity are entirely different beasts. One is a rich, layered mythology with an extremely deep academic and political history, but no modern critical or explanatory components.** The other is an academic theory of economics and politics, with all the tools of discourse of modern academia in its toolbelt, and a completely different critical and analytical goal.

TL;DR? Well, Jesus (in a lenient interpretation) taught that we should help the weak. Marx explained that the people should organize to eradicate the conditions that force weakness onto the people. Jesus
taught that greed would keep a man from heaven, Marx explained that religion, nationalism, tribalism and commodity fetishism blinded the people to its common materialist interests. Jesus taught that the meek will be rewarded for their meekness, and while on earth we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; Marx explained that meekness as a virtue is a way of preventing actual revolutionary change, and that dividing the world into the spiritual and the materialistic helped keep the people sedate and passive, which plays right into the hands of the Caesars.

*I'm just kidding, I know you don't recognize any of this


**There probably are modern scholars of Christianity who adapt and adopt some of the tools of modern academic discourse; I know too little about academic Christianity.

@Xaielao - you probably would have said the same about the cultural revolution before it happened... oh it'll never work. And then it did and got completely out of control and caused immense suffering.

I know this is a generalisation of the Chinese, but i found them to be ... um... acquiescent? When i visited.

Pitting people against each other, empowering those who are most 'patriotic' and effectively encouraging them to castigate those who are not. It will almost certainly affect the educated, the intelligentsia first and foremost, painting them as enemies to the overwhelming poorly educated majority. Did they learn nothing during the cultural revolution, or is it an intentional purge? I hope to god nothing like that can happen again, but i feel this has the potential to get out of hand.

I really really hope that China sees protest and change in my lifetime. I loved their country and their people, but they are so badly oppressed.

I have limited experience with slinging, but IMHO it's already very much the same as just throwing a stone out of your hand in terms of aim and how it feels.

You basically just release the knot at the point of the swing where you would anyway. Feels very natural.

There's also very little gain in swinging it more than one revolution above your head, almost all the power comes from the flick at the last moment.

I found getting a good power stroke (ooh er Mrs etc.) was the harder part.

A good afternoon of farting about and you could probably kill someone fairly proficiently with one though.

Someone with a lifetime of practice would be terrifying, at least as much as a good archer I would imagine.