[rdtsc]

Sadly I can't remember last time that was effective. I remember Occupy Wall Street from a few years back. So was so much excitement and energy there but what came of it? A bunch of arrests mostly.

There were some anti-Trump protests. Right after election remember people blocking hospital exits, and setting cars on fire. At the inauguration, downtown DC, a lot of protestors torched trash cans in the street and blocked people getting the main event. It was very visible, for sure, but did it have the desired effect? I don't talk to Trump supporters but wonder how many saw the burning trash cans or who failed to get to the Inauguration thought "yap, this has convinced me, I am switching sides and will vote against him next time..."?

[jacquesm]

Vietnam, MLK, Womens voting rights, gay rights, workplace safety, end of apartheid etc.

Plenty of them all over the world. Occupy Wall Street lacked one thing: a clearly defined goal. You can protest social and economic inequality but that's not the same as saying we will continue to protest until we have 'X' where X is some very clear, concrete and achievable goal.

[rdtsc]

> Vietnam, MLK, Womens voting rights, gay rights, workplace safety, end of apartheid etc.

Exactly. What is the most recent one? It has been so long. Does this tactic even work. I am worried it doesn't.

> Occupy Wall Street lacked one clear thing: a defined goal.

I think Trump opposition is also in trouble for not having a clear goal unless the goal is "remove Trump because I wanted Hillary to win". It has to be like in this case "against extreme vetting from these 7 countries". Or against "building the wall". It has to be a clear message.

[jacquesm]

Historically speaking those are yesterday.

Heck, I remember the Vietnam war and the end of it (I was 12 at the time).

Of course it will work. If enough people will get off their well-fed asses that is, and there lies the biggest problem.

> I think Trump opposition is also in trouble for not having a clear goal unless the goal is "remove Trump because I wanted Hillary to win".

No, that would be the wrong goal.

More something along the lines of 'stop this madness or we'll shut the country down until congress presents a working plan on how we're going to:

(1) get rid of Trump

(2) put safeguards in place that limit the power of the Presidency

Way too much power in those executive orders, it should not be possible for a single individual to affect the world this radically on such a short timespan without adequate debate and on-the-record voting by people that can be held accountable.

Republicans are in power, they own this mess, they should solve it. And if they don't perceive it as a mess it is fairly easy to make them see the light if enough people will connect, and I suspect that by now plenty of Republicans see it the same way.

[rdtsc]

> (2) put safeguards in place that limit the power of the Presidency

> Way too much power in those executive orders,

Makes sense. Coming from Europe and talking to people there, it takes a while to explain to them how the President here has so much power here.

> we'll shut the country down until congress presents a working plan on how we're going to: > (1) get rid of Trump

But what would be the basis of that? Just people saying "not my president". He was voted in by a large part of the country after all.

Now let's think about Google or Facebook shutting for a day maybe. That would get people's attention. Wonder if that would work... it might. There is no real "Republican leaning" equivalent there for those services. Most technology companies which face the public are left-leaning I think. So yeah, I want to see they try that perhaps.

[jacquesm]

> But what would be the basis of that?

Damaging America, possibly beyond repair. One person should not be allowed to do that, especially someone who was voted in on the slimmest of margins.

I'm trying to imagine how the Republican congress would have reacted to Hillary Clinton signing any of these executive orders, I don't think they'd be wanting for reasons to impeach in that situation.

> Now let's think about Google or Facebook shutting for a day maybe. That would get people's attention.

Just twitter for a couple of weeks. That would at least stop Trump from putting his foot in it for a while, though I'm sure the narcissist in chief would quickly find some other avenue to keep ramming on the buttons of his base.

Oh, another real problem with the US electoral system: no matter what there is a four year lock-step system, even if the outcome is horrible. Elsewhere governments can fall early and new elections would be called. Such a thing would never happen in the US and I believe this is an important safety mechanism.

[rdtsc]

> especially someone who was voted in on the slimmest of margins.

How so? He won an unexpectedly high number electoral college votes 304 vs 227. That's not the slimmest margin. Slimmest margin would be having a national recount and so on.

> Just twitter for a couple of weeks.

Shadow ban him! Let him Tweet and if he refreshes the browser he'll see his own tweets. Then add a few "great tweet" comments from some robots, but nobody else see them.

> Elsewhere governments can fall early and new elections would be called. Such a thing would never happen in the US and I believe this is an important safety mechanism

Oh, great point. I forgot about that. I remember it periodically when I read "such and such government has fallen" in the news from Europe and then have to explain to the horrified American what that means (they think it means mass unrest, cats and dogs living together, chaos, looting etc)

[mverwijs]

How about 'damaging the world beyond repair'?

We dutchies didn't get a vote in this, but we will in all likelihood have to face consequences for his actions.