I honestly don't care; impeding traffic is bad form unless they have some type of permit for that type protest; pretty sure that they don't allow such permits
Well it seems like the bulk of the Democratic party seems to think the best response is sitting around watching and hoping that when the price of eggs goes from $9 to $15 that people will get really really fed up with Trump.
Considering all the rallies Harris and Walz did last year did them and us no good though, there is only so much that can be done. At the end of the day, VOTERS decide. That cannot be stressed enough.
I do not believe that taking over the justice department, putting Musk and his 6, 19-24 year olds in charge of government contracting and disbursements, seizing power from Congress, and completely gutting competency from the government is what most people voted for.
Its not the point; Trump won the election; our side lost; strategy for the next election should not include stupidly and unnecessarily pissing off Joe Schlub by impeding his way to get to and from work
That's not the point. The point is for people not to concede and stop resisting. I'm sure you've seen the summaries of what to do to resist authoritarianism before it turns into a dictatorship. Reread them.
If there had been no rallies - or for that matter, low enthusiasm rallies* - the ultimate results may have been worse, and NV/WI/MI Senate seats may have been lost
* I know this is one of those asymmetric things; Reps can have low charisma candidates and unenthused crowds and still win.
I don't think it's logical to conclude that because someone lost by 1.5% of the vote, their rallies were pointless. If you had to know the future to do anything, you'd never do anything. Human history is full of progress, regression, generosity of spirit and barbarity. Do you think all the efforts of Reconstruction were useless because the Democratic Party and KKK annulled them for 50 years?
Okay, then let the stupid people of America feel that pain during a Republican president's time in office. Unless they get burnt, they are just going to grab the hot stove. Saying "we're going to lose our cheap sources of labor!" isn't effective. They need to feel it. Trump partly won on "finishing what Democrats wouldn't let him do" and the next neanderthal (or Trump himself trying for a third term) will run on that again if we step in, particularly if we step in too soon.
Too soon? They should wait until the country is fully under dictatorial rule? How many people were saying similar things in Germany circa 1933. Hitler was a clown, would screw everything up and lose the next election, right?
To be clear: I think that demonstrations against the Trump regime on any subject have the virtue of showing a lack of conformity to authoritarianism, and therefore have a value as pure resistance.
In 2016 Trump road illegal immigration into the White House and our response was basically, "immigration is the heart of America and things will be more expensive without cheap workers". It didn't work. In 2024 he rode immigration into the White House and our argument was "immigration is the heart..." It didn't work. Protesting on the streets in support against his popular policies is pointless. Yes protest his unpopular over reaches. If his immigration policies become unpopular, he has presented an opportunity to strike. We should not charge out in front of our guns.
You just ignored 2020. His winning in 2024, however egregious and existential for the country, does not prove that resistance which helped power the 2018 and 2020 elections "didn't work." This again is the argument to stop doing anything because we can't predict the future and even if it's temporarily good, it could turn bad later. In other words, no argument at all.
It's horrible politics; playing nice in politics has never been my repertoire; I am all about winning elections; pissing off potential allies and persuadable voters is not a winning strategy imo ;impeding traffic is bad form
Vietnam War protests were effective because they were persistent and particularly targeted Washington, DC areas for many months and years.
If these protests were all about stopping traffic, I doubt Vietnam war activism would have gotten that far.
Likewise with labor union protests - They donтАЩt stop traffic and target the companies directly on site. And usually there are resolutions in these cases.
Don't you think Vietnam War protests were ultimately effective only because the public grew weary as the war became an undeniable quagmire? I think it's highly debatable that the protests themselves moved the needle. Recall that a majority of people polled approved of both the Daley crackdown at the Chicago Democratic convention and the Kent State massacre....and both of those happened after the public began turning against the war in pretty large numbers.
Valid question. I'd say while the Vietnam War protests didn't move the needle when they first happened, they did contribute to the awareness of the war during a time when the U.S. by contrast to today was more conservative. Even while the protests did get more disruptive and disbanded at times, protesting against the governments had to involve crowds of people in front of where the federal government is.
Same thing with the South Africa anti-apartheid movements around the world. When the original protests happened, they didn't immediately move the needle and it took many years before the US government under Ronald Reagan's leadership (thanks to Senator Dick Lugar & others) finally acted. This after persistent push
Protests themselves aren't necessarily assured to immediately change minds. However, they need to be focused even if at times they can get out of control a bit.
My issue with protest movements like the Free Palestine movement (for the record, I'm for human rights for both Israelis and Palestinians) is that there's no real focused strategy. It's like the protestors go up to random Jewish synagogues, company buildings (i.e. Google employees protesting in front of the company), and private gatherings of anyone who is a noted Jewish professor as a means of trying to get Jews to be on their side (like the UC Berkeley law professor who had a private gathering with students and then a free palestinine supporter disrupted the meeting with a protest). Not exactly a way to really push Congress and the White House to act.
You're making sense to me. People can have their consciousnesses raised. But we do have to acknowledge that McGovern lost and there were a hell of a lot of people who supported U.S. intervention in Indochina to the end and remained angry about the withdrawal from Saigon for a long time.
After reading through all the comments on this thread, I see a lot of disagreement with you and yet none of it actually talks about what youтАЩre talking about. Thanks for understanding that pissing off swing voters and negatively interrupting their personal lives isnтАЩt a winning strategy.
I don't know how you can fit thousands of people in the Civic center area of LA without impeding traffic.
I honestly don't care; impeding traffic is bad form unless they have some type of permit for that type protest; pretty sure that they don't allow such permits
When we are potentially dealing with a fascist take over of the country, we may to occasionally have to not play nice.
Impeding traffic does zero to stop Trump and Elon. Might actually be counterproductive.
Well it seems like the bulk of the Democratic party seems to think the best response is sitting around watching and hoping that when the price of eggs goes from $9 to $15 that people will get really really fed up with Trump.
Considering all the rallies Harris and Walz did last year did them and us no good though, there is only so much that can be done. At the end of the day, VOTERS decide. That cannot be stressed enough.
I do not believe that taking over the justice department, putting Musk and his 6, 19-24 year olds in charge of government contracting and disbursements, seizing power from Congress, and completely gutting competency from the government is what most people voted for.
Its not the point; Trump won the election; our side lost; strategy for the next election should not include stupidly and unnecessarily pissing off Joe Schlub by impeding his way to get to and from work
He didn't win an election for dictator, and Musk certainly didn't, but pay attention to what they're doing and don't tell people to concede.
absolutely my point, our strategy has to be focused properly; the protests talked about in this thread could actually turn counterproductive imo
That's not the point. The point is for people not to concede and stop resisting. I'm sure you've seen the summaries of what to do to resist authoritarianism before it turns into a dictatorship. Reread them.
If there had been no rallies - or for that matter, low enthusiasm rallies* - the ultimate results may have been worse, and NV/WI/MI Senate seats may have been lost
* I know this is one of those asymmetric things; Reps can have low charisma candidates and unenthused crowds and still win.
Also Arizona.
I don't think it's logical to conclude that because someone lost by 1.5% of the vote, their rallies were pointless. If you had to know the future to do anything, you'd never do anything. Human history is full of progress, regression, generosity of spirit and barbarity. Do you think all the efforts of Reconstruction were useless because the Democratic Party and KKK annulled them for 50 years?
Demonstrating in support of immigration isn't going to do any good. Demonstrating against Trump power grabs, sure.
Crop-pickers not coming in to work makes a difference, especially when Mexican produce was just made 25% more expensive, to boot
Okay, then let the stupid people of America feel that pain during a Republican president's time in office. Unless they get burnt, they are just going to grab the hot stove. Saying "we're going to lose our cheap sources of labor!" isn't effective. They need to feel it. Trump partly won on "finishing what Democrats wouldn't let him do" and the next neanderthal (or Trump himself trying for a third term) will run on that again if we step in, particularly if we step in too soon.
Too soon? They should wait until the country is fully under dictatorial rule? How many people were saying similar things in Germany circa 1933. Hitler was a clown, would screw everything up and lose the next election, right?
To be clear: I think that demonstrations against the Trump regime on any subject have the virtue of showing a lack of conformity to authoritarianism, and therefore have a value as pure resistance.
In 2016 Trump road illegal immigration into the White House and our response was basically, "immigration is the heart of America and things will be more expensive without cheap workers". It didn't work. In 2024 he rode immigration into the White House and our argument was "immigration is the heart..." It didn't work. Protesting on the streets in support against his popular policies is pointless. Yes protest his unpopular over reaches. If his immigration policies become unpopular, he has presented an opportunity to strike. We should not charge out in front of our guns.
You just ignored 2020. His winning in 2024, however egregious and existential for the country, does not prove that resistance which helped power the 2018 and 2020 elections "didn't work." This again is the argument to stop doing anything because we can't predict the future and even if it's temporarily good, it could turn bad later. In other words, no argument at all.
Agreed but my point is solely about the proper tactics
I disagree with this entire post
It's horrible politics; playing nice in politics has never been my repertoire; I am all about winning elections; pissing off potential allies and persuadable voters is not a winning strategy imo ;impeding traffic is bad form
Vietnam War protests were effective because they were persistent and particularly targeted Washington, DC areas for many months and years.
If these protests were all about stopping traffic, I doubt Vietnam war activism would have gotten that far.
Likewise with labor union protests - They donтАЩt stop traffic and target the companies directly on site. And usually there are resolutions in these cases.
Don't you think Vietnam War protests were ultimately effective only because the public grew weary as the war became an undeniable quagmire? I think it's highly debatable that the protests themselves moved the needle. Recall that a majority of people polled approved of both the Daley crackdown at the Chicago Democratic convention and the Kent State massacre....and both of those happened after the public began turning against the war in pretty large numbers.
Valid question. I'd say while the Vietnam War protests didn't move the needle when they first happened, they did contribute to the awareness of the war during a time when the U.S. by contrast to today was more conservative. Even while the protests did get more disruptive and disbanded at times, protesting against the governments had to involve crowds of people in front of where the federal government is.
Same thing with the South Africa anti-apartheid movements around the world. When the original protests happened, they didn't immediately move the needle and it took many years before the US government under Ronald Reagan's leadership (thanks to Senator Dick Lugar & others) finally acted. This after persistent push
Protests themselves aren't necessarily assured to immediately change minds. However, they need to be focused even if at times they can get out of control a bit.
My issue with protest movements like the Free Palestine movement (for the record, I'm for human rights for both Israelis and Palestinians) is that there's no real focused strategy. It's like the protestors go up to random Jewish synagogues, company buildings (i.e. Google employees protesting in front of the company), and private gatherings of anyone who is a noted Jewish professor as a means of trying to get Jews to be on their side (like the UC Berkeley law professor who had a private gathering with students and then a free palestinine supporter disrupted the meeting with a protest). Not exactly a way to really push Congress and the White House to act.
You're making sense to me. People can have their consciousnesses raised. But we do have to acknowledge that McGovern lost and there were a hell of a lot of people who supported U.S. intervention in Indochina to the end and remained angry about the withdrawal from Saigon for a long time.
After reading through all the comments on this thread, I see a lot of disagreement with you and yet none of it actually talks about what youтАЩre talking about. Thanks for understanding that pissing off swing voters and negatively interrupting their personal lives isnтАЩt a winning strategy.
thanks