People like you have also been saying for CENTURIES that revolution is the only way. But the number of revolutions that had good rather than bad consequences has been rather scant in the history of the world. Can you point out ONE instance of "creative destruction" that worked, say, this century?

Again, changes are slow things. America has changed a lot in the last fifty years, and it will change again in the next fifty years even without "creative destruction".

You seem to know a lot American MYTH and not enough American history. We are the United STATES of America not the United PEOPLE of America. The State is the fundamental political unit in our country. The independent sovereignty of each state is a fundamental aspect of American governance and secession is merely the extension of this concept.

I thought the Civil War was partially fought about this, and had settled this question against your interpretation. So many things depend on that war. Even the fact that you guys say "The United States is", rather than "The United States are", is a consequence of that war.

The myth of state independence dies hard, though.

My question is simple: what is the meaning of democracy if you can't live with people who think differently from you? And how is that different from bigotry? The Apartheid was also based on the idea that "different" should be "separate".

ONE poll has shown a majority have become pro-life which runs counter polls taken over the last 20 years showing consistently a majority of people supporting pro-choice.

Which is sufficient argument to ask for MORE polls before making claims like yours.

60% is not large enough for you.

That's not what I said. 60% is plenty big for me. It's apparently you who think 40% isn't very large. (Hint: 40% is way more than the number of people who agree with you.)

And the number of abortion clinics have decreased, the number of abortion providers have decreased. Fewer medical students are interested in abortions. The number of restrictions of abortion have increased. Now compare that to the fact that demand for abortions have increased. The number of births to unwed mothers have increased. The number of births from teenagers have increased.

This was achieved by changing mentalities, and probably has a lot to do with the current American tendency to value all life (see discussions on ethical treatment of animals), which feeds into conservative myths about fetuses.

Ask for more polls, Yminale, and for what people really think about these issues. These are your targets: the people who you have to convince to support you. Anti-choicers have gone viral. You must, too. 'Revolutions' will basically put more people against you (because you'll be 'oppressing' them, etc.).

Get your revolution, and you will give them victory by default.

Ok You get nothing if you support the Democrats and you get nothing if you support a third party so in the end you are left with idealism.

Nope. I think you misevaluate the Democrat's capacity for change. Your revolution should be achieved within that party. As far as I can see, it's more likely to happen and work there than it is to happen and work outside of it.

There you have it.

Pmorlan,

I'm not 'condescending', I just keep asking the same question -- what are your realistic options? what can you achieve? -- and I keep getting no answer.

I'm not a Democrat, and I never have been -- again, I'm not even an American citizen. You can refuse my advice if you want of course--it is sincerely given. But since we were asking what the best thing to do was, I think putting it in this way is not disrespectful. There is no reason for you to be offended other than you wanting to.

I did answer your question, and I will again, in more details so that the connection becomes obvious: I am not trying to 'defend the Democratic party' in itslef -- I'm not a Democrat, never have been -- but I'm trying to ask how the hell you think you have any chance of actually achieving something without a third viable party, and how different your position is than simply supporting the Republican party. In other words: I'm not saying you should be a Democrat because their ideas are the best in the world, I'm not saying you should give up your ideas and embrace the Democratic Party with all your heart, I am not defending anything the Democrats have done thus far in this administration -- I am asking you what the viable alternative is, and in the absence of one, asking you how your position differs from handing power over to the Republicans.

I tend to be a realist, with enough idealist in me to keep the mix going. If what you plan to do is try to build up a third party... well, good luck with that, and the Republicans thank you. You may think I'm trying to scare you with Limbaugh, but I again ask you: in what way does your option translate into something that is not going to be helpful for them? You may not like Nazi and Soviet parallels, but again: what have the 'revolutions' that Ms Luxemburg, Mr Liebknecht, and ultimately even Lenin, achieved?

Again, I'm not trying to "bring you, upset with the Party, back into the fold". I'm asking you what your options are, and how these translate into something viable. You're the one who keeps avoiding this, possibly because you are royally pissed at the Democrats (which I am, too).

I repeat: I have no interest in defending the Democratic party. I still want to know how you think you'll get anything viable out of your anger rather than simply the pleasure of 'voting right' and a smile and a thank-you card from the Republicans.

There, I have re-examined my argument, as you suggested. Now let's hear yours; since other than "I'm pissed at the Dems", I haven't heard it yet.