I linked to what I meant by a "real revolution" and used it to describe why Bernie Sanders' use of the term was fake to me.

Almost by definition, a revolutionary rejects and wants to overthrow a system of government, not join and lead it. Bernie isn't calling for the destruction of the two party system or Congress. He wants to bring change from within. That's not revolution.

...My point is, Sanders is not a modern-day revolutionary. He's not revolutionary at all. He is an idealist with the right position on political issues, who is to be credited for forcing the media and politicians to take the left more seriously this primary season. But he will be no more successful in the long run than Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Jesse Jackson or Ralph Nader because the majority of Americans still do not embrace such views.

In that post I also linked to this article, "What do the Zapatistas and Bernie Sanders have in common? Hint: Not a Revolution"

Whist reflecting on the Zapatistas revolution, in April of 2015, the Zapatistas clarified the distinction, in a world-wide communiqué, between revolutionary change and voting in mainstream elections: "Because it's the same thing among all those who want a political position, regardless of whether they dress up red, or sometimes in blue, or sometimes they put on a new color. And then they say they are the people and that therefore, the people have to support them. But they aren't of the people. They're the same bad governments who one day are local representatives, and the next are union leaders, then they are party functionaries . . . bouncing from one position to another, and also from one color to another."

Yes, Sanders has raised a lot of money. Yes, Sanders' rhetoric is persuasive. As a scholar of Communication Studies, I teach my students the power of persuasion. I teach them the devices and appeals to persuade. However, I also teach my students that we must be critical consumers of discourse. When striving to become members of a critical public, we must not be persuaded simply by style or word choice, but instead, we must critically scrutinize the effects and meanings of the persuasive appeals. Therefore, in the current rhetorical situation, an appropriate question that the dominant media is not asking is: does Sanders' rhetoric of anti-establishment and revolution match up with the material reality? Yes, people are "feeling the Bern." But they are feeling the "burn" of a traditional established politician, operating within a mainstream political system, with all of the mainstream political constraints for change--not a "burn" of a radical political revolution. For that, you'd have to visit the snails in Chiapas.

A quote from Subcomandante Marcos:

"That is why we, the Zapatistas, don't get tired of saying organize yourselves, let's organize ourselves, each person where they are, let's struggle to organize ourselves, let's begin by thinking about how to start to organize and let's gather together in order to unite our organizations for a world where the people command and the government obeys."

And see my favorite communique of the Zapatistas, published in the San Francisco Chronicle many years ago after a rumor surfaced that Subcomandante Marcos was gay. It ends with, "Marcos is all the exploited, marginalized, and oppressed minorities, resisting and saying, 'Enough!"'

They are not violent.  There is no violence in the marches in my city.  There is not even a threat of violence in the marches in my city.

A honest, organized peaceful protest movement would send a powerful message.
But are they protesting things that haven't occurred yet, and fear will happen, or current conditions?

And I have always promised myself a fishing vacation,

I have mentioned the Amazon Peacock Bass dream, but that is a tad expensive, but the Amazon is the Amazon, a great lure

And you did say you have crocodiles across the canal from you, lol.

align with the original intent of the Constitution to restore autonomy to the states and greatly reduce the influence of the Federal gov't (including gutting most federal programs) in the every day lives of Americans.  I do not believe section 1 and 5 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution were ever intended to be used as courts have interpreted it the last 60 years (not saying they didn't have good intent, just that the intent has been bastardized).  IF states were more independent, people could choose to live in areas that align with their beliefs/ideals on life which is something Jefferson and the FFs worked extremely hard for.

 Most observers know that Trump has no policies of his own, just some notions, so he will be the ribbon and bow on a package of Republican wet dreams originating at the Heritage Foundation and put into place by the Republican Congress.

it was directed at you but reflects badly on the site