• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Protests against Trump in all 50 states

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 12, 2001
Messages
11,172
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...7-live-updates-trump-protests-budget-tariffs/

I've read that violent protests almost never work but large protests that are non violent and well organized sometimes work. Think of the massive protests that helped pass the Civil Rights laws. They worked. Some of things we protested about in the 60s did seem to work, lowering the voting age is the one that comes to mind, and maybe ending the draft. The Viet Nam was was already becoming extremely unpopular, so it's hard to say how much influence our protests made regarding that war.

Regardless, I'm hoping this thread will be used to discuss/report the protests against Trump and/or his cronies, as well as any signs of effectiveness. I just hope they stay peaceful!

Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators are set to hit the streets across the country on Saturday in protest of President Trump and his administration.

The “Hands Off!” rallies are taking place in more than 1,000 cities across all 50 states, and nearly 400,000 people have signed up to attend the protests, according to the progressive organization Indivisible, which is one of the almost 200 groups partnering to organize the event.

What are the ‘Hands Off!’ rallies’ demands?​

SOPHIA VENTO
Organizers of the anti-President Trump demonstrations across the country have three main demands of the administration.

  • A call to end billionaire influence and “rampant corruption” in the Trump administration
  • A push to end federal funding cuts for Social Security, Medicare and other social programs
  • A plea to attacks on marginalized communities, such as immigrants and trans people
Event organizers specifically name tech billionaire and Trump senior adviser Elon Musk alongside the president in their demands.

Donald Trump and Elon Musk think this country belongs to them,” the movement’s website states. “They’re taking everything they can get their hands on, and daring the world to stop them. On Saturday, April 5th, we’re taking to the streets nationwide to fight back with a clear message: Hands off!”
 
Very large protests can work, but there's still enough MAGAs out there it won't.
 
I've read that violent protests almost never work but large protests that are non violent and well organized sometimes work.
The people who wrote that were shitting themselves in fear of the power of the people.

Protests of any kind rarely work (if by "work" we mean "lead to significant change"); Those that do work are, more often than not, violent - peaceful protests are more likely to lead to changes that are cosmetic at best, if they lead to any change at all.

Most violent protests start out peaceful; The authorities bring the violence, in opposition to the protest.

Of course, once a violent protest has "worked", we no longer call it a protest - it is a "revolt" or a "revolution" or a "civil war" or an "independence campaign", or a "coup d'etat". That tends to play into the hands of the propagandists who write stuff like what you have read.
 
Means nothing. We need corporate America to protest, we need the GOP to protest but apparently most of them have drank the Flavoraid.
 
In times like this a sense of humor helps. This is a sign at the rally in Kansas City today. Fans of Mary Poppins may like it

Screenshot from 2025-04-05 17-14-33.png
 
Very large protests can work, but there's still enough MAGAs out there it won't.
Agree.
The trumptards in DC can look at massive protests all over the country and feel like they're winning; there are 340 million people in the US.
If 3 million show up to protest, or lets make it 34 million, that leaves a 90% majority that they represent (at least to themselves) as those who don't think there's anything wrong with whatever the traitors are doing that is worth protesting.
Organizers expected 25,000 people to show up in Boston. A tiny fraction of the population, that can be safely ignored. Especially since a bunch were from out of State.
Get FIVE Congressional Republicans in either chamber to stand up, and the effect will be greater than 5 million people protesting. And THAT would require every single State to have protests four times bigger than the headline event in Massachusetts today.
 
Last edited:
What made spineless hypocrites out of McConnell, Graham, Cruz, Rubio, and Vance in the first place? What turned them, after they'd described Trump as a bigot, a dunce, a degenerate, and someone out of step with traditional values? The polling. The numbers told them that if they wanted to stay in the GOP as electable politicians, they had to go along with a rabble rouser who had seduced the party's base.
It will take time and a real shift in the polls to give cowards like the ones I listed (although Vance will never be able to do it) to dream of opposing Trump. The street demonstrations won't do it unless, over time, the number of protesters increases and makes a real dent in the Asshole's support. He'll lose the "independents" first. If he begins to lose the MAGA folk who begin to feel the damage he's wreaked (veterans, retirees, pensioners, Medicare clients), and if there is a discernable pattern in midterms, then this President's spell will be broken.
Not the damage he's done -- that's generational in scope.
And it may not happen. I'm through overestimating the intelligence of the electorate. IMHO, if you voted for Trump, you don't appreciate what democracy means, and you don't deserve to live in one. Look what you've given us.
 
I've read that violent protests almost never work but large protests that are non violent and well organized sometimes work.
The people who wrote that were shitting themselves in fear of the power of the people.

Protests of any kind rarely work (if by "work" we mean "lead to significant change"); Those that do work are, more often than not, violent - peaceful protests are more likely to lead to changes that are cosmetic at best, if they lead to any change at all.

Most violent protests start out peaceful; The authorities bring the violence, in opposition to the protest.

Of course, once a violent protest has "worked", we no longer call it a protest - it is a "revolt" or a "revolution" or a "civil war" or an "independence campaign", or a "coup d'etat". That tends to play into the hands of the propagandists who write stuff like what you have read.
I agree that protests rarely bring a lot of change. But, I did read a good bit about the history of them in the US and the non violent ones like the Civil Rights Movement protests were more effective than most. Most of the anti war protests of my youth were non violent and they did influence some changes, based on my experiences. They only became violent on some occasions. The ones I marched in were all peaceful.

For that matter, I participated in a protest when I was attending a liberal arts college demanding that class attendance be optional. It was totally non violent and we won. Again, that was in the 60s when protests were extremely common.

The purpose of the thread is to see, how large and frequent they will be and if they will have any influence on Congress. I'm not expecting them to influence our psychopathic president, but there are already a few Republicans in Congress who seem a bit shaken up by what's going on in the country and if enough people protest etc. it might work. We have very few options to use. I'm not expecting a revolution at this point, just a lot of very angry citizens who are willing to speak their minds.

The Protests today were just a start. We are living in times unheard of since my youth and this is one thing people can do to try and influence their reps.
 
Last edited:
What made spineless hypocrites out of McConnell, Graham, Cruz, Rubio, and Vance in the first place? What turned them, after they'd described Trump as a bigot, a dunce, a degenerate, and someone out of step with traditional values? The polling. The numbers told them that if they wanted to stay in the GOP as electable politicians, they had to go along with a rabble rouser who had seduced the party's base.
It will take time and a real shift in the polls to give cowards like the ones I listed (although Vance will never be able to do it) to dream of opposing Trump. The street demonstrations won't do it unless, over time, the number of protesters increases and makes a real dent in the Asshole's support. He'll lose the "independents" first. If he begins to lose the MAGA folk who begin to feel the damage he's wreaked (veterans, retirees, pensioners, Medicare clients), and if there is a discernable pattern in midterms, then this President's spell will be broken.
Not the damage he's done -- that's generational in scope.
And it may not happen. I'm through overestimating the intelligence of the electorate. IMHO, if you voted for Trump, you don't appreciate what democracy means, and you don't deserve to live in one. Look what you've given us.
I agree with most of that, especially that the protests need to continue and get larger. Trump has already lost a lot of independents and even some who voted for him. People are really pissed off, especially federal employees, minorities and SS recipients or those who have family on SS or will soon be eligible for it themselves.

I know some Trump voters who weren't in the cult, they just had no idea he would go to this extreme, so they made a big mistake by believing the asshole's bullshit. I'm more upset with all the Democrats and young voters who didn't vote because Harris was either too far left or too far right. A lot of the Trump voters were just stupid or low information voters. The non voters who wanted a perfect candidate have no excuse imo.
 
Young liberals are great at protesting, but terrible at voting.

Here's a painfully truthful quote from a BBC article I read earlier:

"Protests and rallies, they don't mean anything," Homan continued.

"So go ahead and exercise your first amendment [free speech] rights. It's not going to change the facts of the case."
 
Young liberals are great at protesting, but terrible at voting.

Here's a painfully truthful quote from a BBC article I read earlier:

"Protests and rallies, they don't mean anything," Homan continued.

"So go ahead and exercise your first amendment [free speech] rights. It's not going to change the facts of the case."
Oddly enough, I saw a majority of older adults were at a lot of the protests today and we older adults always vote. Plus, perhaps protests will lead to more efforts to get out the vote etc. Protests help put out information. Congress members need to know how their constituents feel about what they are doing and protests are just one way of getting the word out. We shall see.
 
Oddly enough, I saw a majority of older adults were at a lot of the protests today and we older adults always vote. Plus, perhaps protests will lead to more efforts to get out the vote etc. Protests help put out information. Congress members need to know how their constituents feel about what they are doing and protests are just one way of getting the word out. We shall see.
One of the things we are demanding 'hands off' of is Social Security. That is going to bring out a LOT of people, Democrat and Republican, who DO vote. My group holds the key to the end of MAGA. Let Social Security miss even ONE check and MAGA will lose a lot of members.
 
Considering Trump pardoned all those domestic terrorists, I can't help but believe it's only a matter of time before Charlottesville 2.0 happens by some MAGA cunt.
 
The protests first and foremost are a leading indicator to the GOP establishment that there is a highly motivated and politically engaged segment of the population that is seriously pissed off. A large enough motivated group can affect elections and, therefore, put presssure on congress. I think it is nihilistic and also factually wrong to think otherwise. Is it large enough at this point? I don't know, but we are in early stages and there are already mouth noises coming from some GOP members worried about the recent tariffs, as an example. As these protests hopefully grow it will make Trump look weak and unpopular heading into the 2026 midterms, and we need him to look as weak and unpopular as possible.
 
Organizers expected 25,000 people to show up in Boston. A tiny fraction of the population, that can be safely ignored. Especially since a bunch were from out of State.

Does this seem pessimistic? The 50-mile march from Selma's Pettus Bridge to Alabama's Capitol in Montgomery changed America. The number of marchers is sometimes quoted as 25,000 but that was the crowd who gathered to hear Martin Luther King's speech on March 25, 1965; the number who walked the whole 50 miles was much less. (Though cheering crowds joined them along the way.)

But reviewing that famous march, I note that
  • It began after Bloody Sunday (March 7) when
    The marchers crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge and found themselves facing a line of state and county officers poised to attack. When demonstrators did not promptly obey the officers' order to disband and turn back, troopers brutally attacked them on horseback, wielding weapons and chasing down fleeing men, women, and children. Dozens of civil rights activists were later hospitalized with severe injuries.

    Horrifying images of the violence were broadcast on national television, shocking many viewers and helping to rouse support for the civil rights cause. Activists organized another march two days later, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. urged supporters from throughout the country to come to Selma to join. Many heeded his call, and the events helped spur passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 three months later.
    How many Americans today would risk injury, e.g. by surrounding foreigners on student visas with their own bodies?
  • The March was protected by federal troops sent by President Lyndon B. Johnson. (This was after George Wallace promised LBJ he'd protect the March with the Alabama National Guard but then double-crossed LBJ.)

    But who could take the place of LBJ in a 2025 scenario? Would the Governor of New York call up troops to prevent ICE agents from operating in his state? The "best-case" outcome from that might be Civil War.
  • Who do we have that could take the role of the very eloquent Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.?

    I don't think we have anybody who comes remotely close. Is Cory Booker our hero now? Stephen Colbert? Silly YouTube influencers?? (I loved Sarah Cooper, but now she's just embarrassing herself with weird podcasts.)

So I am pessimistic, though for reasons different from Elixir's.
All's Well That Ends Well has a three-line quote (the last three lines of the following) often used in despair; HOWEVER the full speech tells a different story:
Whoever wrote the works of Shakespeare said:
What I can do can do no hurt to try,
Since you set up your rest 'gainst remedy.
He that of greatest works is finisher
Oft does them by the weakest minister.
So holy writ in babes hath judgment shown,
When judges have been babes. Great floods have flown
From simple sources, and great seas have dried
When miracles have by the greatest been denied.
Oft expectation fails and most oft there
Where most it promises, and oft it hits
Where hope is coldest and despair most fits.

Get FIVE Congressional Republicans in either chamber to stand up, and the effect will be greater than 5 million people protesting. And THAT would require every single State to have protests four times bigger than the headline event in Massachusetts today.

There are about THREE Senators who often vote with the humans, but FOUR are needed. (If a fourth appears, one of the first three will find a reason to switch back to fascism.) Of the Fifty Senators who vote with Trump, about 49 understand fully well that they are voting for Stupidity and Evil. I guess they just like that holiday in Hawaii one of their donors gave them.

Sorry: I have no solution to offer. If I were a Believer®, maybe I'd suggest a replay of Genesis 7:
God to Noah said:
I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.
...
Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.
 
I found a link that goes into detail regarding a study about the effectiveness of protests. It gives evidence that non violent ones with huge numbers of participants have been the most successful. Since the current protests have been well organized and are beginning to include some politicians, I'm not giving up hope, at least not if the effort continues and grows in numbers. If I were in better shape and could withstand long walks, I would join them. In fact. Meanwhile I sign petitions and give donations to organizations like the ACLU, etc. What else can we do, other than encourage people to vote in the midterms? ( I had to remove some graphs as the site wouldn't permit me to post more than 5 images, but you can access the entire link if interested. )

https://commonslibrary.org/protest-movements-how-effective-are-they/

1. Nonviolent tactics, as opposed to violent tactics​

It is hotly debated within social movement circles whether activists should move towards using more violent tactics because the problems we face are so severe and progress seems so slow. However, our research, and the available evidence, suggests that nonviolent tactics are more likely to lead to successful outcomes relative to violent outcomes.

Some of the evidence we base this conclusion on are:




  • Other experiments have shown that the support both from the public and elected representatives is higher if protests are nonviolent. The graph below, from Wouters (2019)shows the difference in public support (with ‘worthiness’ as their proxy for nonviolence). The experiment with policymakers, Wouters and Walgrave (2017), also finds that more nonviolent protests are much more likely to persuade elected representatives to hold views closer to that of the protestors.
503ba4_f97da385720c42d697f86844eba4f391~mv2.png


The question of whether violence or nonviolence is more effective is the most studied by academics amongst the factors we examined. Most studies reach similar conclusions (but obviously context matters and there are some exceptions), providing weight to this conclusion.
Our interviews with experts corroborated the research literature. Here are some of the things they said:

We can say with a reasonable amount of confidence that violence is probably less effective than nonviolence.
There are lots of similarities across nations about the ineffectiveness of violent protest, this is true whether you’re in an autocratic or democratic context, except in the US where it might be more socially acceptable.
Lots of advocates of violent protest argue for the ‘radical flank effect’, but it seems really obvious that sometimes the radical flank effect will work and other times it won’t, you can’t just cite the radical flank effect as a justification for violent protests.

This one might seem obvious, but we hadn’t seen too much discussion of this outside academic circles, so we think it’s worth reiterating. Our research showed that factors largely outside the Social Movement Organisation’s control – things like pre-existing public opinion, supportive elites, media environment, and luck – play a big part in determining the success of a protest movement. We haven’t reviewed the literature on this extensively (as it was slightly outside the scope of our report) but based on what we did find, we think it’s an important consideration.

Some of the relevant evidence from our literature review includes:

  • Giugni (2007) talks about the impact of elite allies, claiming that social movement success requires both public opinion being on side and for the protesters to have political allies. He found that this combination of protest, public opinion, and political allies was important for increasing spending on environmental protection and reducing spending on nuclear energy (in line with the demands of the social movement).
  • Bernardi et al. (2020) finds that legislator attention will only occur if there is a strong protestor signal (e.g. large protests) AND this signal is supported by existing public priorities (e.g. high levels of supportive public opinion).

Some things our experts said about this:

Elite allies seem to be immensely important, because legislators are ultimately the people who drive the changes. The reception that protest receives from elites may account for 80% of the variance in outcomes.
One thing worth mentioning is that the right conditions need to exist for a mass protest movement to emerge.
You also can’t downplay the impact of luck in social movement success.

In line with Erica Chenoweth’s famous 3.5% rule, the size of a protest movement seems to be an extremely important consideration for achieving protest goals. The causal chain is slightly harder to untangle here, since it’s not always clear if a protest is more likely to succeed because it’s larger, or if it’s larger because people think it’s more likely to succeed (and therefore feel more comfortable about joining it). Some recent experimental evidence suggests that protest size does have a causal impact on outcomes, in that larger protests can lead to higher chances of winning a policy change.

Relevant evidence from our literature review:

  • Wouters and Walgrave (2017) find that elected officials are much more likely to hold a position closer to the protestors if a protest is larger, and that they are more likely to take action (e.g. propose a bill or ask a question).
503ba4_2a09f122947343e29b40f0e573069c9e~mv2.png




  • Teeselink and Melios (2021) looked at the effects of the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020. Their quasi-experiment showed that people in areas with Black Lives Matter protests with high numbers participating were more likely to vote Democrat than those in areas with protests with low participation, showing the importance of numbers on political outcomes.
  • Walgrave and Vliegenthart (2012) studied protests between 1993 and 2000 in Belgium and also found a significant impact of protest size on legislation. The larger the number of protesters, the more likely it was that legislation was affected.
503ba4_e3aa6a7154f64765a4883e684fc67b4a~mv2.png


Quotes from our expert interviews regarding numbers:

“The number of people at a protest is probably the most important factor in its success, but this is somewhat obvious to protestors.”
“Although politicians invest so much effort in discovering public opinion, often they don’t have good models, so they might use protest and the numbers at a protest to get a sense of public opinion.”
“It’s worth noting that it’s very unclear what effect small protests are likely to have – some studies looking at small protests against austerity in Greece, Spain, and Portugal seem to find that they had pretty much zero effect.

Three quick caveats when reading this research:

  • This report is not so much an exhaustive handbook of what protest-focused movements should do to be successful, as a summary of the current available evidence. Some factors are easier to measure relative to others, so there might be a bias in this report for factors that are more measurable.
  • Movements and Social Movement Organisations are optimising for different outcomes, such as changing public opinion, influencing policy, altering public discourse, etc. This means it’s not possible to do a like-for-like comparison for different tactics or strategies, as they often focus on different outcomes.
  • Our report covers high-level movement strategy, such as decisions about how much effort movement leaders should put into size, diversity, and internal governance. We don’t cover more on-the-ground guidance on how to run effective campaigns, as we think this is covered fairly well in other work. For those interested in the nuts and bolts of how to campaign effectively, we suggest the following resources: Activist Handbook, The Commons, Campaign Bootcamp and Effective Activist.

Overall, we think our top three findings aren’t particularly groundbreaking, but support what other movement strategists have been saying previously. It highlights the importance of nonviolent discipline amongst social movement organisations, especially amidst calls for more violent actions within particular movements. It also supports the idea that numbers matter a lot – no surprise to activists who believe in people power.

However, our more surprising finding of the importance of timing, external factors and luck leaves some open questions. It’s been discussed previously that social movements may ebb and flow in cycles, but it’s not clear what grassroots organisations should be doing in their fallow periods. This is an area we think could be explored further.

We hope that the full success factors report and this blog post sets out some tangible and actionable ways in which movement leaders, advocates and funders can ensure we optimise work on some of the most challenging issues of our time.



Listen to Episode 28 of the Social Change Agency Podcast – What makes an effective protest movement with James Ozden from Social Change Lab (24:35 mins)
Esther Foreman and Rachel Krengel from The Social Change Agency meet up with James Ozden, Director at Social Change Lab to explore what it takes to build an effective protest movement.
Topics covered include:



  • Format:

image
Attribution-NonCommercial CC BY-NC

Contact a Commons librarian if you would like to connect with the author

Topics​

 
there are already mouth noises coming from some GOP members worried about the recent tariffs,
YEs....the brave GOP Congressmen who lower their eyes and glance furtively....looking for for anyone from the EO who might tell Trump that they were saying bad things about his policies. They should be speaking out LOUDLY. But they don't.
 
Young liberals are great at protesting, but terrible at voting.

Here's a painfully truthful quote from a BBC article I read earlier:

"Protests and rallies, they don't mean anything," Homan continued.

"So go ahead and exercise your first amendment [free speech] rights. It's not going to change the facts of the case."
Oddly enough, I saw a majority of older adults were at a lot of the protests today and we older adults always vote. Plus, perhaps protests will lead to more efforts to get out the vote etc. Protests help put out information. Congress members need to know how their constituents feel about what they are doing and protests are just one way of getting the word out. We shall see.
I think protests in the past were helpful. Nixon created the all volunteer army because of the fallout of Vietnam. By ending conscription he also pulled the teeth out of the anti-war movement.

Now though? There were lots of protests during Trump's first go-round, and they were utterly ineffective. Nothing changed. The right has lost its fear of The People.

What's keeping them from gunning down protesters now?

I don't know. Or maybe they don't have to because they know that protests don't work anymore.

Oh, also, what were the protests like in red states? The biggest ones were in solidly blue states, which an especially egregious waste of time and space. When I see mass protests against the GOP in Kansas City, then maybe protests will mean something again.
 
I think protests in the past were helpful. Nixon created the all volunteer army because of the fallout of Vietnam. By ending conscription he also pulled the teeth out of the anti-war movement.

Now though? There were lots of protests during Trump's first go-round, and they were utterly ineffective. Nothing changed. The right has lost its fear of The People.
Protests against American presidents only work if the president gives a fuck about something besides his own glorification.
 
Back
Top Bottom