Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on the table'

How imbecile, uneducated, and naive does one have to be to think that a violent revolution because voting results don't meet personal hopes and aspirations would be somehow an improvement?

Violence never solves anything. It only creates more problems.

Likewise, who could possibly think that usurping one partisan side for the other would actually make anything better? The system itself doesn't work, promotes corruption, and promulgates the bi-partisan division that keeps positive change from occurring. It is not the puppets with a different name and a different face that are elected into office that are the problem, so much as the entire system itself.

Lastly, one cannot destroy without first creating a replacement. To not do such would throw America into chaos, anarchy, and imminent destruction. Offer up a sensible, well-thought out replacement to our flawed system, and provide a proof of concept that it has safeguards to prevent the flaws that plague our current government system, and put it up for a vote to reform.

Violent Revolt is only a last ditch option made by the desperate with no other options available to them...which in our form of government, there is *ALWAYS* the option of protest to bring about peaceful Reform instead. Our governmental system allows for reform from within by using our governmental system to achieve it. As such, anyone suggesting violent Revolt should be regarded as committing treason for attempting to incite violence.

America is supposed to be the beacon of freedom and democracy in the west. If its government is corrupt and its people are not overthrowing it, there is no hope for the rest of the world.

You are supposed to set the example. I constantly hear people saying things like "normal Americans are good, honest people just going about their lives" and while I do not doubt this is true, it doesn't seem to be good enough if they are not doing anything about the injustices and evils their government and corporations have inflicted on the world for personal gain.

How can Americans of all people have forgotten their own history so quickly?

reply to post by v3_exceed


It was a Republican candidate that made this statement, and what political party oversaw the purchase and implementation of these voting machines?

Oh and heaven forbid if the majority of American don't share your voting habits, I understand this can be hard to accept.

reply to post by LDragonFire


um, just to let you know, um....its been widely suggested that the Democrat party influenced the purchase of these alleged voting machines. You have Clinton and Gore to thank for that one~

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater

Originally posted by Misoir
I think before we could honestly consider overthrowing the government violently they must first be harming all of us directly. Not just because an election doesn't give you the results you want, that is 100% childish and immature, I truly believe people like him should be locked up in jail for treason.

Your future, and that of your family is being directly harmed by our current puppet government.

Your wallet is being harmed. Your freedoms are being harmed.

Should I continue?

Yes...please continue...I love hearing conservatives cry.

Please name me which "freedoms" of mine that are being harmed.

And my wallet is doing just fine...maybe you are just not good with money.

Originally posted by Wrecked
reply to post by Misoir

 

Real quick, you claim you haven't been harmed? Flown on a plane in the last decade and a half? Did you enjoy the molestation and blatant violations of the 4th Amendment you and others were forced to undergo? There is more to the definition of harm than just the physical sense~

No one is forcing you to fly...I don't remember "you have the right to fly on an airplane without going through security" in the constitution.

You don't like going through security...buy your own plane and become a pilot...fly out of a small local airfield. WOW...look at that...in this country you are FREE to do that if you wanted to.

Originally posted by Wrecked
reply to post by LDragonFire

 

um, just to let you know, um....its been widely suggested that the Democrat party influenced the purchase of these alleged voting machines. You have Clinton and Gore to thank for that one~

Are you serious?

The Last time Election Reform happened in America was in 2002 Help America Vote Act of 2002

This is getting off topic.

Vote your conscience and so will everyone else and this vote might not go in your favor and you think that is just cause for a violent uprising?

Im not saying our voting system is good or competent, but war would be in our neighborhoods and I would rather my kids not have to experience that.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I wonder if Congressman Broden is going to take up arms himself and lead the overthrow?

What a chicken **** ideologue! This issue was discussed on ATS ad nauseum a few months ago but all the keyboard
revolutionaries seem to have disappeared. huh? I presume they got their stars and flags from their admirers and eventually lost intrest and went back to American Idol!

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Your right, we are free to do what we want to! But show me where it says in the Constitution that the government has the right to infringe on my rights?
You asked what rights, or should I say, where are you being harmed am I right? You a gun owner? The 2nd amendment right has been under attack for 40 plus years! The true question is how does one define "harm"? For some, much like yourself, harm is only defined if it effects you personally, or emotionally. Forget everyone else~

it's kind of stunning that someone who is running for office said this.....

if he doesn't have faith in our election process, well, then why is he running??
if he has faith in our election process, and the dems by some miracle win, umm......is he gonna have a revolution against the majority's choice??

is he saying....
vote for me, or I start a war within our country, and you can say goodbye to whatever peace you might have??

I can kind of guess who AIN'T gonna win come election time..

reply to post by Aggie Man


As a disclaimer, this has more to do with what you said than what the candidate stated.

If the results of the elections, be it that a Democrat or a Republican are placed into the seat, promising one thing or another and then does a 180 upon that and only follows money, special interests, etc. Is it still childish to assume that the people we elect no longer represent those that placed their trust into them, but rather are using the people to obtain the power they wish to seek?

In an election, where two candidates most likely have two different sets of ideas and principles and use those ideas and principles to achieve what they feel best for the people they represent, then your statement is correct. It is childish.

If it were the exact opposite, where no matter the letter sitting behind a candidates name represents no difference other than the lip service presented to obtain the seat they wish to reside in, then is it not the duty of the governed to present that redress upon that representative? If they scoff at your redress and continue down a path that only serve some interests, mainly money and power, should not then the people pursue all the means necessary to ensure their liberties remain intact?

reply to post by dawnstar


That's how I interpreted comments, too. It all sounded like a form of blackmail to me. vote my way or violence will ensue.

We have a good system and I believe it's the way to go but we have to get rid of the power corporations have to influence pretty much everything to their benefit. I've read numerous articles on the influence of well financed lobbyists and it's scary what our system of government has been twisted into. Yes we can elect our representatives but they are subsequently immediately bought out from our service to serve organized special interests. Since the smart thing to do would be to form a citizens lobby, it has been done but then these groups fall like the rank amateurs they or get lost in the sea of influence peddlers when they have to swim in the same seas as the corporate sharks with the real might and money. This happens at pretty much every level of government , really. Ive seen citizens groups totally flattened when trying to fight the construction of a highway that was going to make some fat cats even fatter. Dates for crucial meetings got changed or obscured. The public was reportedly shut out altogether from meetings we'd been promised access to.

The founding fathers set up a good thing but the courts really screwed us in determining a corporation has the rights of a person.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Three word reply: Choose better candidates.

Edit:

On a side note, and slightly off topic, perhaps term limits for congress is the answer. If staying in office is not an option, then perhaps these elected officials would actually act upon their constituents best interest. I believe it is clear that power corrupts, regardless of where one is in the political spectrum.

As others have pointed out, our form of government is REPRESENTATIVE, not DIRECT.
Given the technology we have today, it would be possible to have a direct form of democracy, where each legal citizen would be able to vote, once and only one, on any given law or issue.

Let's look at ancient Greece:

The nature of Athenian democracy

Direct, not representative

The biggest difference between Athenian democracy and almost all subsequent democracies is that the Athenian version was remarkably direct rather than being representative. With a few exceptions, Athenians didn't vote for politicians to represent them; all Athenians voted on just about every law or policy the city was to adopt. Shall we fight the Spartans? The people vote and decide. Raise taxes? Build a navy? The people decide.

A limited role for officials

To make the government run, the Athenians did have to have public officials, of course. But they took radical measures to limit their power. Most public offices in the developed Athenian democracy were chose by lot, i.e., were chosen randomly. All those citizens willing to serve in a certain office put their names forward, and the winner was chosen rather like we choose lottery numbers. The Greeks considered this the most democratic way of choosing officials, for it ensured that all citizens, whether prominent, popular, rich, or not, had an equal chance to serve. (It may also have been considered a way of letting the gods pick the right people for the right jobs.) There were thousands of public offices chosen this way; and in almost all cases, an individual could hold a given office only once. Most offices were relatively unimportant, and far from full time work. But the sheer number of offices ensured that not only did the Athenians vote directly on most issues of state; most of them served many times during their lives as public officials.

It would be very hard indeed for an Athenian to speak of the government as "them" or speak of the bureaucrats off in Washington or "Inside the Beltway." The Athenians were their government: there was no "us" versus "them." And the Athenians were, in fact, remarkably satisfied with their government; there was little of the alienation many Americans today feel about our rather different form of democracy.

languages.siuc.edu...
Wouldn't this be a BETTER form of government?
Do you think that such a system would eliminate any threat of violence, if everyone had equal voice in that government.
Would you prefer such a form of government?

Comments....

reply to post by Aggie Man


And to that I agree. That is why I advocate highly to people that they should stop neglecting their local politics. One of the easiest and surest ways to have better candidates is to be involved from the community level all the way to the national level.

While there is no Constitutionally specific term limit upon Congress, they are put up for reelection accordingly. That is a form of term limits that should be taken serious but alas, not even half this country really cares about their Republic.

You stated 'choose better candidates', in which I wholly agree. But at what point, when no 'better candidate' ever makes it to that seat? Do we continue to allow those that sit in their seats continue their obvious slide to a pure Nationalistic government where the States and the People are fully subjected to their whims? Or at some point do the people become fed up with the fact that no matter whom they have sent, still maintains the status quo of ignoring their duties as representatives?

It is not as black and white as you present. Which I would wish it were to be. We have processes in place that allow us to remove the representatives (voting) and Congress has processes to remove members of its own house(s) (impeachment). Since the 2nd rarely ever happens, even though cases could be made to institute the procedures with past and present representatives that leaves us to the first process. Which the American people on a whole have failed at miserably.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


this is some dude running from congress and well compare this to this guy and obama czar who had his political power given to him.







so i wonder how many people agree with this guy " does politcial power come from the barrel of a gun " ?


viiolent revolution would solve nothing in todays world but during the american revolution it did but thats not the world we live in today americans have become to pacified.

that dude is wrong calling for it most likely he wont win and maybe its a good thing.

this school of thought exists on both sides but to call one side out is disingenuous both parties have their nuts its a fact that noone can deny

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Yet the founding fathers specifically set up the form of government to not be 'direct'. Specifically if we focus upon the Congress.

Originally, the lower house (House of Representatives) was to be the democratic house. That the representatives were elected by the People of a predetermined district to represent that district. This allowed direct democracy to be represented, but at a much smaller scale. Being that democracy on the scale of the whole country as large as the United States (even in the late 1780s) would be hard to administer and govern on a whole. By breaking up the democratic portions into the districts of respective states, the People still had their voices heard through their Representatives.

The upper house (the Senate) was to be the aristocratic house. Those elected to the Senate were done so by the States and their legislatures. The reason to this is to ensure that the interests of the States on a whole were being heard at the Federal level. In Federalist Paper No. 39, Madison states the following:

The House of Representatives, like that of one branch at least of all the State legislatures, is elected immediately by the great body of the people. The Senate, like the present Congress, and the Senate of Maryland, derives its appointment indirectly from the people.

And his most pointed note on regard to the original setup of the Government is the following from the same source,

The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL.

All the above is a void statement thanks to the 17th Amendment. We are no longer a Federal government, but a National one as all bodies of the Congress represent the People. States are no longer represented within the Federal Government.

With the adoption of the 17th Amendment and the all ever cry to rid the country of the Electoral College, we are closer and closer to a direct democracy. If this happens, especially with the participation rates we see today in elections at the national level, we will see 45% of the country direct the other 55% how to live.

Post Script: It is interesting to note that when it came to the established powers of the Government, the Anti-Federalist for the most part enjoyed the separation of the Houses. They realized that having the People represented in one house, the most numerous of representations and the States having representation in the other, it ensured that the nation would never become a direct democracy.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
It is not as black and white as you present. Which I would wish it were to be. We have processes in place that allow us to remove the representatives (voting) and Congress has processes to remove members of its own house(s) (impeachment). Since the 2nd rarely ever happens, even though cases could be made to institute the procedures with past and present representatives that leaves us to the first process. Which the American people on a whole have failed at miserably.

Agreed, It's certainly not that black and white. However, it's the political system we have; and, arguably, it's the best system in the world.

So, what do we do? If you have a problem, then you need to have a solution. And that solution must contain safeguards to prevent a repeat of the problem. Violence is not the answer, so that leaves the polls on election day as the best viable solution, and ensuring that the best candidates are on the ballot on election day.

Another issue at hand is that no matter what, politicians can't please all of the people; so there will always be a percentage of the people that feel like they are not being represented. So, there will always be political unrest to some extent. To that percentage of the population that is in "political unrest", all I can say is tough luck. Go out and campaign and turn your minority into the majority...peacefully!

reply to post by neo96


It would only come when the government becomes so detached from the people that it is no longer supported by the people, and when it's actions cause the oppression and servitude of the the very people for which it owes it's existence to. The founding fathers said it is the right of the people to abolish such government and institute a better one.

Anyone who proposes violent revolution in my opinion are traitors under Article III Section 3 of the United States Constitution.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

They in my opinion would be levying war against We the People and should in my opinion be hung as traitors. They are in my opinion just fascists who want to dominate others, they have zero respect for the Constitution, they have zero respect for Liberty, and they have zero respect for Freedom. The proof is that they would take away other people's Constitutionally protected right to elect whom they choose to.