At some point Americans are going to have to unite in numbers and demand changes to be made.
I feel like I've been beating this drum since my high school debate days; are you voting in local elections? If you're not, then you're wasting everyone's time complaining about "demanding change" because that's where it starts. We have elections literally every year for something and essentially a national plebiscite every four years when we vote for President. Those are your chances to "unite in numbers and demand change".
Voting is how we effect change in the United States.
The fact of the matter is that only around 60% of
registered voters actually cast ballots in Presidential elections, and its progressively lower in other elections. That's only 70 million people out of a population of over 300 million
at best. Most people don't care who is running the show as long as they have a job, a place to sleep, and food on the table.
Watershed elections, think 1932 or 1980, are generally preceded by significant social and economic unrest and the party that is swept into power has been headed by a charismatic person who is campaigning on a message that despite her problems, America is great and we have a glorious future ahead of us if we work together in spite of our differences. Could 2024 be a watershed year? There has been social unrest. There have been economic problems. But the party out of power is headed by a man who does not see America as a great nation, who looks back instead of forward, and hates three quarters of the electorate. That's not a recipe for success, or at least that's not a recipe for a mandate which will bring about radical change at the Federal level.
I disagree. I don't see the government blanket bombing us. I think that would turn ALL citizens against them, not just the 1/2 that already are.
I think they would have to send in army reserves like they do during riots. And if we were to a point to shooting it out with Army/citizens, I would think a decent portion of the army and police (typically blue collar folk) would switch sides.
I also think that the people would be targeting the politicians, not just fighting in the streets.. which would be significantly more impactful as to the results.
Does anyone really understand what the consequences of taking up arms against the United States would be? No. Look at what happened in the Civil War. Our country was devastated and it took more than a decade for us to really get back on our feet. And parts of the South? Shit, more than a hundred years to really pull level with the rest of the country in terms of GDP and PPP. Is that worth it? Even if "we won", our country would be shattered. Your nice cushy life would be over. Your children's future would be gone. The United States position as the preeminent world power would vanish and be supplanted by China. Most Americans may not realize that consciously, but subconsciously they realize that their life would be unrecognizable if they did.
There are not 150 million people that are pissed off enough at the government to start shooting politicians in the street. In reality, there probably aren't even 150,000. This is the realm of Amon Bundy and the like. People may agree with the sentiment of people like that, but scant few are willing to drive up to a bird refuge in Oregon and start shooting at Federal agents.
Educate yourself on the issues. Talk about the issues with your friends and neighbors and build a consensus among your cohort. Vote in
every election. This is how you make a difference, no other solution exists to make meaningful, lasting change for the better in our country.