Before Trump’ first term I didn’t think any president would get away with:
overturn Roe v. Wade
Accept multi-million dollar bribes from historical enemies
Be a convicted felon
Incite an insurrection
Deploy marines into an American city
Refuse to return documents of the highest security clearance
Have publicly supported, criminal proceedings against him dismissed.
Blatantly destroy the 100+ year friendly relationship with Canada
Demand personal loyalty pledges from his appointees
Publicly ask Russia to help him during his presidential campaign
Ask a govenor to fraudulently manufacture electoral votes
Public threats to private citizens about revoking their citizenship
No due process extraditions to brutal, non-American, non-Democratic countries prison’s
Suddenly abandon military bases leaving allies fucked
Tarrifing the world
… I’m tired of writing this shit.
At this point Trump could bomb a U.S. city, claim it was a terrorist attack, and just dismiss any agency that contradicted him. Fox ‘news’ would tell their viewers that the Liberals were blaming Trump just because they hate him, and they would fall in line. Any news program that claimed otherwise would be labeled “fake news”. The sheep that watch Fox news would cancel any host who dared question Trump.
There is no one holding him accountable for anything. The Supreme Court told him to turn planes around and he just didn’t. If Trump dropped a bomb on a U.S. city, assuming you could convince people he did it (which I doubt), who is it that goes to the White House and drag him to court? No one. They wouldn’t let anyone in.
The only solution is protest. If 3% of Americans protested things would change. Historically, 3% is the number. But the longer they wait the harder it is, and they are all convinced they can’t do anything.
people need to stop quoting that 3% nonsense. its not 3% of the population chanting and waving signs that trigger change. its violence, either economic, property or physical. you’re not going to accomplish anything until you start breaking shit. and from i’ve seen people in the US are no where near the state of being willing to do that.
The 3.5% rule is a concept in political science that states that when 3.5% of the population of a country protest nonviolently against a government, that government is likely to fall from power. The rule was formulated by Erica Chenoweth in 2013. It arose out of insights originally published by political scientist Mark Lichbach in 1995 in his book The Rebel’s Dilemma: Economics, Cognition, and Society.
I’m well aware of it. sorry but basically every instance of a government falling from power have substantial violent elements operating simultaneously with the non-violent. just quoting ‘if we 3.5% of the population’ gets you no where. we already have 3.5% of the population against trump/gop. the problem is you twits dont know how to protest effectively.
Sources for over 3.5%: see the 2023 election results. 60 million people were willing to vote for a genocidal prick over trump.
Sources for ineffective protests: please attend any no kings protest and you’ll see what i mean. Words words words, and not a single action being promoted.
Sources for violence: pick a movement. Will find the violent aspects. But lets use gandhi as an initial example
If you think just having 3.5% of the populations support is sufficient you’re an idiot. You need that support to be willing to do something that negatively impacts society, strikes, sit ins, property damage, etc.
You’ll note the distinct lack of actual activity against trump. People are more interested in waving signs and listening to people talk than actuall doing anything.
Then you twats run around screeching 3.5% is all we need! God you’re all idiots. At least start fucking striking. Someones notices a numerical value and you twits think the number is magical all on its own completely disassociating it from actual context.
Sources for over 3.5%: see the 2023 election results. 60 million people were willing to vote for a genocidal prick over trump.
This is the point I am discussing in this thread.
I, personally, did not come up with the 3.5% number. Rather, I read what was written by people who publish their findings and rationale. I’ve provided sources that informed my opinion. My opinion could be wrong. If so I look forward to changing it, and thank you for taking the time to inform me better.
To the point: I don’t see how quoting election figures counters the 3.5% number regarding protests. ‘Election’ and ‘protest’ are not synonymous, and the relationship between them are not as simplistic as you infer.
To clarify, and to the (certainly unintentional) strawman-ing of some of what I have posted:
Re: No-Kings Protests - I’ve never suggested that all protests are effective. I don’t believe that at all. I said protests the size of 3.5% of a population affect change. I’m not aware of any protest that has been that well attended yet.
Re: Violence - My point was to counter the incorrect claim that the 3.5% referred to violent protests. I’m not making any further claim beyond that. I’ve cited the source material
Re: Support - I’ve never claimed that 3.5% support will change anything. I’ve only stated that a protest of 3.5% population does cause change, historically.
Re: Idiocy - I can confirm that I am an idiot. That’s why I read books, because I’ve found that the facts often are unintuitive. The good news is that if we read what people have figured out before critically, then we often don’t have to relearn things the hard way. I highly recommend this process over the alternative.
Re: Sources - I’ve provided sources for you so you can verify that I’m not just pulling random statements out of my ass. I don’t expect you will actually look at them, but objecting to them with anecdotes and unrelated reasoning seems like a fruitless way to spend your time. But please, continue if you’d like…
because you and these protests are quoting 3.5% as if its a fact. its a magnitude without a vector. the vector is the important aspect, not the magnitude. if your vector is ‘run around city limits with pithy signage’ (our current protests) I assure you, nothing will change even if you had 50% of the population doing it.
historically its when the vector hits around 3.5% that matters. if you have the wrong vector the magnitude is completely unrelated and you’ll end up in a different location than you expected. Notice that around aspect of 3.5% because guess what: it actually isnt a value that matters much. its the vector that actually institutes change.
the population against the GOP and Trump already exceeds 3.5% they just dont know how to effectively protest and the people running these protests have nfc what they are doing when it comes to leading such activities. that was the point of the voting numbers.
my point is quoting that number as if its a magical threshold we need to reach without anything else is actually counter productive to actually getting change.
the problem with you being an idiot and spouting this nonsense is hilariously exemplified by your assertion that reading papers and books somehow gives you insights without actually putting that information into its proper context which you clearly havent, nor have the people running these protests.
if you want these protests to be effective you need to do a few things:
actually cause harm to the institutes causing the problems.
do it in such a way the population doesnt revolt against you efforts.
show that its effective and people should help. (you’ll know because the government will crack down on you, and people will show up to future events)
anything outside of those 3 aspects in just noise. I’ll simply point you to luigi as a wonderful counter point to the ‘nonviolence’ aspect of that 3.5% number tossed around. His actions where highly supported by the population, used violence effectively, and it did effect change however small. if you look at basically every successful movement there is always violence involved. which people like the author try to ignore. take gandhi’s movement against the british, widely lauded as non-violent, however if you take a wider perspective beyond that movement itself you’ll learn there was violence involved. by other groups at the same time you can’t decouple those two groups from the outcome. they both play roles in the result and thats exactly what the paper where the 3.5% number comes from ignored; the activities of the groups operating at the same time as the peaceful ones.
And then there is the question of what actually constitutes violence. did they consider property damage as violence? how about economic blockades? I consider both to be violence and effective agents of change.
Before Trump’ first term I didn’t think any president would get away with:
At this point Trump could bomb a U.S. city, claim it was a terrorist attack, and just dismiss any agency that contradicted him. Fox ‘news’ would tell their viewers that the Liberals were blaming Trump just because they hate him, and they would fall in line. Any news program that claimed otherwise would be labeled “fake news”. The sheep that watch Fox news would cancel any host who dared question Trump.
There is no one holding him accountable for anything. The Supreme Court told him to turn planes around and he just didn’t. If Trump dropped a bomb on a U.S. city, assuming you could convince people he did it (which I doubt), who is it that goes to the White House and drag him to court? No one. They wouldn’t let anyone in.
The only solution is protest. If 3% of Americans protested things would change. Historically, 3% is the number. But the longer they wait the harder it is, and they are all convinced they can’t do anything.
people need to stop quoting that 3% nonsense. its not 3% of the population chanting and waving signs that trigger change. its violence, either economic, property or physical. you’re not going to accomplish anything until you start breaking shit. and from i’ve seen people in the US are no where near the state of being willing to do that.
The 3.5% rule is a concept in political science that states that when 3.5% of the population of a country protest nonviolently against a government, that government is likely to fall from power. The rule was formulated by Erica Chenoweth in 2013. It arose out of insights originally published by political scientist Mark Lichbach in 1995 in his book The Rebel’s Dilemma: Economics, Cognition, and Society.
Non-Violent
I’m well aware of it. sorry but basically every instance of a government falling from power have substantial violent elements operating simultaneously with the non-violent. just quoting ‘if we 3.5% of the population’ gets you no where. we already have 3.5% of the population against trump/gop. the problem is you twits dont know how to protest effectively.
It’s funny that in 2025 people still think that just saying shit on the internet means anything.
Sources, or stfu dude.
Sources for over 3.5%: see the 2023 election results. 60 million people were willing to vote for a genocidal prick over trump.
Sources for ineffective protests: please attend any no kings protest and you’ll see what i mean. Words words words, and not a single action being promoted.
Sources for violence: pick a movement. Will find the violent aspects. But lets use gandhi as an initial example
If you think just having 3.5% of the populations support is sufficient you’re an idiot. You need that support to be willing to do something that negatively impacts society, strikes, sit ins, property damage, etc.
You’ll note the distinct lack of actual activity against trump. People are more interested in waving signs and listening to people talk than actuall doing anything.
Then you twats run around screeching 3.5% is all we need! God you’re all idiots. At least start fucking striking. Someones notices a numerical value and you twits think the number is magical all on its own completely disassociating it from actual context.
This is the point I am discussing in this thread.
I, personally, did not come up with the 3.5% number. Rather, I read what was written by people who publish their findings and rationale. I’ve provided sources that informed my opinion. My opinion could be wrong. If so I look forward to changing it, and thank you for taking the time to inform me better.
To the point: I don’t see how quoting election figures counters the 3.5% number regarding protests. ‘Election’ and ‘protest’ are not synonymous, and the relationship between them are not as simplistic as you infer.
To clarify, and to the (certainly unintentional) strawman-ing of some of what I have posted:
because you and these protests are quoting 3.5% as if its a fact. its a magnitude without a vector. the vector is the important aspect, not the magnitude. if your vector is ‘run around city limits with pithy signage’ (our current protests) I assure you, nothing will change even if you had 50% of the population doing it.
historically its when the vector hits around 3.5% that matters. if you have the wrong vector the magnitude is completely unrelated and you’ll end up in a different location than you expected. Notice that around aspect of 3.5% because guess what: it actually isnt a value that matters much. its the vector that actually institutes change.
the population against the GOP and Trump already exceeds 3.5% they just dont know how to effectively protest and the people running these protests have nfc what they are doing when it comes to leading such activities. that was the point of the voting numbers.
my point is quoting that number as if its a magical threshold we need to reach without anything else is actually counter productive to actually getting change.
the problem with you being an idiot and spouting this nonsense is hilariously exemplified by your assertion that reading papers and books somehow gives you insights without actually putting that information into its proper context which you clearly havent, nor have the people running these protests.
if you want these protests to be effective you need to do a few things:
anything outside of those 3 aspects in just noise. I’ll simply point you to luigi as a wonderful counter point to the ‘nonviolence’ aspect of that 3.5% number tossed around. His actions where highly supported by the population, used violence effectively, and it did effect change however small. if you look at basically every successful movement there is always violence involved. which people like the author try to ignore. take gandhi’s movement against the british, widely lauded as non-violent, however if you take a wider perspective beyond that movement itself you’ll learn there was violence involved. by other groups at the same time you can’t decouple those two groups from the outcome. they both play roles in the result and thats exactly what the paper where the 3.5% number comes from ignored; the activities of the groups operating at the same time as the peaceful ones.
And then there is the question of what actually constitutes violence. did they consider property damage as violence? how about economic blockades? I consider both to be violence and effective agents of change.
deleted by creator