[rayiner]

> Maybe severe violent revolt but I literally don't ever see that happening.

I always find this sentiment (or various forms of "wiping the slate clean") to be quite amusing. It is historically more likely for a society to be less free after violent revolution than the opposite. Radicals who believe in a cause strongly enough to engage in revolution also tend to be ideologues who, once in power, want to remake society in the mold of their own viewpoint.

The historically successful revolutions have been conservative ones. For example, the Glorious Revolution in which Parliament asserted its supremacy over the King of England. In another example, modern democratic Spain arose with the restoration of the monarchy!

[venomsnake]

Wiping the slate clean also means repeating the same mistakes. Actually I strongly prefer pragmatic and strong ideology free, realpolitik playing USA than the current state where the US is ... entangled in some mix of ideology and interest that ensure that anything will be done half assed.

[rfnslyr]

World War I and II were settled over some whiskey and a game of poker right?

It's difficult to objectively say whether violent revolt works, because every single revolt has been in a very different context then the next.

The amount of people, artillery, the strength of the opposition, the cause, the location, the current government, the time.

You can't say whether a violent revolt is the way to go or whether it's not the way to go. It's not a black and white issue at all.

If my brothers and sisters see that giving up their lives for our country is a necessity, then I will dedicate my life and fight along side them.

It hasn't gotten bad yet, the moment it starts to really affect your day to day life, people will do something. Right now, to most people, if their instragrams and facebooks work they don't care.

[rayiner]

> World War I and II were settled over some whiskey and a game of poker right?

It's interesting that you mention that, because at the meta level World War I and II were Germany's attempt to violently overthrow the status quo in Europe (which had long tried to maintain Germany as a divided non-power). The revolution failed and the status quo won.

> It's difficult to objectively say whether violent revolt works, because every single revolt has been in a very different context then the next.

Sure, but you can see patterns. From France to China to Russia to Afghanistan, etc, etc, violent internal revolutions are more likely to result in oppression than freedom.