[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)

[jacquesm]

> 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.

Lost the popular vote and won because of approximately 100K votes in three states.

The electoral college is a total aberration and should be abolished (fat chance of that happening), if it didn't stop this BS from happening it is patently useless, that was the only reason I thought it might have some use one day.

I hope those electors lose a lot of sleep.

[rdtsc]

> Lost the popular vote and won because of approximately 100K votes in three states.

Electoral campaign strategy is endogenous so to speak. Why would he bother campaigning in a state if he was sure he had enough there to win just a bit over the margin.

I understand if it was a single state that flipped but it was multiple states that flipped, and most importantly it seems he knew he needed just enough votes to flip them. And campaigned exactly there in the last weeks before the election.

The other question is why did Clinton campaign in California and never even set foot in some states that flipped? She was the one supposedly having the most experience and stellar team managing the strategy for her.

I think it is important to not minimize or reduce his winning to chance, it wasn't a random and and not a slim margin of error. Consider he didn't even start on equal footing. He was a TV personality with no political experience, with all mass media against him, with the president against him, without all the Wall Street backing him etc. That means he is even less of a random fluke. I think he is a symptom of something. If we don't understand why he was elected we'll have another Trump and another worse one and so on. Not saying I have a clear answer yet why but I think it is worth digging more in there, mostly on the self-reflecting side than blaming and name-calling side, thought I've see more of the later not the former in my circle of acquaintances.

> I hope those electors lose a lot of sleep.

It was sad really. There was so much talk and a small glimmer of hope that electors would flip against Trump and in the end the opposite happened more flipped against Clinton (5).

[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.

[jacquesm]

Yes, it may well come to that. Let's do what we can to avoid that.