|
Protests don't equal revolution. Remember when Bush won the whitehouse in 2000? there where protests all over the country. There were nearly as many protesters at the inauguration as there were people there to watch the event. People were pissed and a lot of people said he stole the election. There was all kinds of talk of revolution. So what happened? They elected him for a second term.
The Vietnam war era was packed with protests, but there was no revolution.
People are too complacent to revolt. A revolution requires a person to be willing to risk most, if not all, of what they have for a change and that isn't happening anytime soon. American Idol is on and more people are interested in voting for their favorite shitty singer than they are of changing their government.
Here is where I find the irony in the tea party protests. Bush dumped billions into the bailout before Obama ever set foot in the white house so if the protesters are blaming only Obama they have it wrong. If Obama had done nothing and had done like many of the protesters want and just let every that would fail on its own fail we would most likely be in much deeper shit than we are now. So if we had around 20% unemployment because we let most of the banks fail, we let all the businesses that rely on those banks fail and we let the auto industry fail and many of these protesters now were unemployed I think they would then be screaming at Obama for doing nothing.
There will be no revolution. Not today. Not next month. Not next year.
If people really want revolution they should vote for third party candidates. Let these candidates get some votes and use that exposure to raise more money and start to build the strength of these parties. If everyone who said they didn't like either presidential candidate voted third party, we would have a third party. But that doesn't happen. Everyone talks of change, but they don't really want major change.
|