Trumps Presidency 2025

[Tiger337]

According to this, if 3.5% of the population peacefully protests something, change will inevitably happen.  

That is roughly 11 million Americans protesting together at the same time.  You'd need a tangible hook to get them together and it needs to stay peaceful which is no easy task.  It's not out of the question though.  What's the hook going to be? And what would be the best timing?  

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world?fbclid=IwY2xjawIchxxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHbbJWj1jH5x68Ow9FHqrOVdHBaeHRctXVb-nhvlozk5mnjlfDy-DWy0X9g_aem_5yTVKCyQZQGZhWCNRPqzmQ

Quote

Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.

 

Quote

Looking at hundreds of campaigns over the last century, Chenoweth found that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their goals as violent campaigns. And although the exact dynamics will depend on many factors, she has shown it takes around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change.

 

 

[romad1]

another quid pro quo

https://bsky.app/profile/manojmate.bsky.social/post/3li5x2366nk2f

[CMRivdogs]

 

[Tigerbomb13]

23 minutes ago, romad1 said:

another quid pro quo

https://bsky.app/profile/manojmate.bsky.social/post/3li5x2366nk2f

This is absolute, complete corruption

[Tigerbomb13]

51 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

 

It was never about cutting costs. It was about owning the libs, even it if means people in the US and abroad dying and suffering for it. 

Edited February 14 by Tigerbomb13

[Tiger337]

30 minutes ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

It was never about cutting costs. It was about owning the libs, even it if means people in the US and abroad dying and suffering for it. 

I would guess that the amount of resources going into mass deportations is at least as much as any money they have saved.  

[Tigeraholic1]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

I would guess that the amount of resources going into mass deportations is at least as much as any money they have saved.  

Well worth the cost of investment.

[Tiger337]

15 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Well worth the cost of investment.

Probably not, but that wasn't my point anyway.  

[Edman85]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

I would guess that the amount of resources going into mass deportations is at least as much as any money they have saved.  

Let alone the cost of office space for federal workers. Nobody above me on the food chain has gotten any work done the last three weeks.

[Tigeraholic1]

Also amazing

 

[romad1]

1 hour ago, Edman85 said:

Let alone the cost of office space for federal workers. Nobody above me on the food chain has gotten any work done the last three weeks.

Lots of closed door meetings 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

 

Whoooooops.

[chasfh]

9 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I don't know, but Hegseth seems to be an idiot.  In his first term, your president made some respectable military hires. This time, his whole cabinet seems to be clowns.  It's almost like he is deliberately hiring unqualified people.  

Kakistocracy. 

[chasfh]

9 hours ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

The amount of corruption just a month in is staggering. 

It’s not even a month yet. It won’t be a month for another six days, and so much **** is going to happen in the next six days that we’ll all wish it was February 14 again. Well, most of us, anyway.

[chasfh]

5 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

According to this, if 3.5% of the population peacefully protests something, change will inevitably happen.  

That is roughly 11 million Americans protesting together at the same time.  You'd need a tangible hook to get them together and it needs to stay peaceful which is no easy task.  It's not out of the question though.  What's the hook going to be? And what would be the best timing?  

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world?fbclid=IwY2xjawIchxxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHbbJWj1jH5x68Ow9FHqrOVdHBaeHRctXVb-nhvlozk5mnjlfDy-DWy0X9g_aem_5yTVKCyQZQGZhWCNRPqzmQ

 

 

 

The only fly in that ointment is that in order for non-violent protest to work, non-violent protesters will have to suffer public violence at the hands of the violent people in power. That’s what has had to happen for people to change their minds about the status quo. That’s how it’s always worked in the past, anyway. My fear is that too many people in our society have a real blood lust, slaked by soaking up exciting and violent movies and video games, and they think it would be cool to see it all happen IRL in their own communities. I guess we’ll see how they feel when they do see it actually happen.

[chasfh]

41 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

 

Whoooooops.

There are a lot of Russian technicians they could invite in on guest visas who would manage it for free, basically.

[Hongbit]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

There are a lot of Russian technicians they could invite in on guest visas who would manage it for free, basically.

A Russian passport is probably all that’s needed to gain entry now. We share the same leader so we’re practically the same country.

[Tiger337]

40 minutes ago, chasfh said:

The only fly in that ointment is that in order for non-violent protest to work, non-violent protesters will have to suffer public violence at the hands of the violent people in power. That’s what has had to happen for people to change their minds about the status quo. That’s how it’s always worked in the past, anyway. My fear is that too many people in our society have a real blood lust, slaked by soaking up exciting and violent movies and video games, and they think it would be cool to see it all happen IRL in their own communities. I guess we’ll see how they feel when they do see it actually happen.

I think some people might want to see that, but how many will actually want to get involved in the violence themselves? 

Anyway, I think you are right that the hook will be violence  A smaller protest broken up by a police or military shooting might be the hook for wider protests.   

[CMRivdogs]

26 minutes ago, chasfh said:

The only fly in that ointment is that in order for non-violent protest to work, non-violent protesters will have to suffer public violence at the hands of the violent people in power. That’s what has had to happen for people to change their minds about the status quo. That’s how it’s always worked in the past, anyway. My fear is that too many people in our society have a real blood lust, slaked by soaking up exciting and violent movies and video games, and they think it would be cool to see it all happen IRL in their own communities. I guess we’ll see how they feel when they do see it actually happen.

Was thinking about that the other day. Wondering whether something on the level of the Viet Nam War protests in the Fall of 1969. Organized efforts on college campuses, cities throughout the country followed by a big protest in Washington. It was all peaceful for the most part, there was a clash with police after the DC March, but no riots.

Unfortunately it won't work today, the country is too fractured. Groups like the Proud Boys and other far right wing groups and similar groups on the left almost make it impossible (think Charlottesville). It would have to include significant representation from a wide spectrum of citizens. 

[chasfh]

16 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I think some people might want to see that, but how many will actually want to get involved in the violence themselves? 

Anyway, I think you are right that the hook will be violence  A smaller protest broken up by a police or military shooting might be the hook for wider protests.   

It took the Salt March beatings and jailings to start changing minds among reasonable British people about India. It took watching kids getting hosed in Birmingham, churches being bombed in Birmingham, social workers begin kidnapped and murdered in Mississippi, to start changing minds among reasonable white people about American apartheid. These violent public events spurred these reasonable people to put pressure on their governments to effect change—too slow change, but charge nevertheless. 

My question is, how far would it all have to go for reasonable people to demand change, and how far is the government willing to go to maintain their hold even in the face of such demands? A concern I have is how some people have developed a blood lust due to persistent desensitization to violence in the media they consume, people who might enjoy it IRL, providing the kind of popular support which emboldens regimes; plus, a key role model rooting all this on is a country that thinks nothing of killing or sacrificing literally millions of its own people to maintain order. We didn’t have either of those factors when Jim Crow was facing its first real challenges from the public. It remains to be seen how this will all transpire. But transpire it will, irrespective of what you or I desire in our hearts, or hope to have any influence over.

We are about to live through some interesting times, my friend. Buckle up, and have a plan if you can.

[chasfh]

35 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Was thinking about that the other day. Wondering whether something on the level of the Viet Nam War protests in the Fall of 1969. Organized efforts on college campuses, cities throughout the country followed by a big protest in Washington. It was all peaceful for the most part, there was a clash with police after the DC March, but no riots.

Unfortunately it won't work today, the country is too fractured. Groups like the Proud Boys and other far right wing groups and similar groups on the left almost make it impossible (think Charlottesville). It would have to include significant representation from a wide spectrum of citizens. 

I wonder whether any civilian factions might join in on the proceedings as deputized militias? That is definitely something that was not a factor in 1969.

[Tiger337]

38 minutes ago, chasfh said:

We are about to live through some interesting times, my friend. Buckle up, and have a plan if you can.

It's such a shame.  There is no need for any of this at all.  The country was doing fine.  There are always problems, but there was nothing happening in the US that required any radical change in the foundation of the country.  We really screwed things up for no reason.  

Not really sure what plans to make.  Are you talking about leaving the country?  That's hard to do if you are not wealthy.  Another problem there is that we are dragging every developed country in the world into this and many countries in Europe are having trouble as is.  There aren't going to be a lot of places to turn anymore.  Can't even think about Canada anymore!

Edited February 15 by Tiger337

[chasfh]

7 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

It's such a shame.  There is no need for any of this at all.  The country was doing fine.  There are always problems, but there was nothing happening in the US that required any radical change in the foundation of the country.  We really screwed things up for no reason.  

Not really sure what plans to make.  Are you talking about leaving the country?  That's hard to do if you are not wealthy.  Another problem there is that we are dragging every developed country in the world into this and many countries in Europe are having trouble as is.  There aren't going to be a lot of places to turn anymore.  Can't even think about Canada anymore!

I think the reason is that there are different groups of people who have different goals. The oligarchs want to steal all our money and create a new Gilded Age (a term Trump explicitly used to describe his goal) of wealth and income inequality; the so-called Christian nationalists want to create an explicitly Christian nation in law and custom, presumably in preparation for Jesus to come back and do whatever their churches tell them he wants to do; and the white supremacists want to reestablish hegemony in the United States. And by “white supremacists”, I don’t mean just people with Nazi armbands who march with tiki torches—that’s too facile and easily dismissible. I mean ordinary everyday people in our communities who have regular jobs and live in kept-up apartments or own homes or maybe small businesses and go to ballgames and do community stuff. Your neighbors. My neighbors. A lot of people are jealous their grandparents and great-grandparents got to enjoy that hegemony. They want that, too. Not all the Trump people want the exact same things, but they will form whatever alliance they need to achieve their peculiar goal, irrespective of what anyone else wants.

As for plans, I can’t presume to tell anyone what they should do for themselves. Our plans are our own. I think most people in opposition to what’s happening will stay the course and try to weather the changes, hoping things will change back to the way they were, maybe next year or in a couple years or with the next president or something. That’s a plan, probably the easiest plan and, arguably, a fairly risky one. Other people might have more drastic plans as you imply. Either way, it would probably behoove people to consider what the possibilities are and to think ahead to how they want to respond to the changes. Because the absence of a plan, the pretending that everything is still normal and nothing has changed except the guy at the top, may end up being the riskiest course of all, even though avoiding thinking about any of it may be best for our mental health in the short run.

[CMRivdogs]

Let's hope they remember this if we make it to elections in 2026 and vote their MAGA reps out (Not holding my breath)

 

[romad1]

1 minute ago, CMRivdogs said:

Let's hope they remember this if we make it to elections in 2026 and vote their MAGA reps out (Not holding my breath)

 

I can't believe the anti-Christ is the anti-Christ because my huckster pastor said he wasn't.