Comment on At this point who in the world could stop Trump over doing something totally illegal? Like lets say using bunker buster bombs to destroy DEM cities? Or is USA communially FUCKED?

• jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • RootAccess@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    It’s funny that in 2025 people still think that just saying shit on the internet means anything.

    Sources, or stfu dude.

    source

    • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Sources for pver 3.5%: see the 2023 election results.

      Sources for violence: pick a movement. Will find the violent aspects. But lets use gandhi as an initial example

      If you think just gaving 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, 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 actuallundoing anything.

      Thrn you twats run around screeching 3.5% is all we need! God you’re all idiots.

      source

      • RootAccess@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        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…

        source

        • -> View More Comments