Noone, I just think that anyone who thinks he would get away with bombing a city is either trolling or has a tinfoil hat so heavy they would not get phone reception under it.
I’ll assume it’s a troll and thought it useless to feed him attention.
Before Trump’ first term I didn’t think any president would get away with:
overturn Roe v. Wade
Accept multi-million dollar bribes from historical enemies
Be a convicted felon
Incite an insurrection
Deploy marines into an American city
Refuse to return documents of the highest security clearance
Have publicly supported, criminal proceedings against him dismissed.
Blatantly destroy the 100+ year friendly relationship with Canada
Demand personal loyalty pledges from his appointees
Publicly ask Russia to help him during his presidential campaign
Ask a govenor to fraudulently manufacture electoral votes
Public threats to private citizens about revoking their citizenship
No due process extraditions to brutal, non-American, non-Democratic countries prison’s
Suddenly abandon military bases leaving allies fucked
Tarrifing the world
… I’m tired of writing this shit.
At this point Trump could bomb a U.S. city, claim it was a terrorist attack, and just dismiss any agency that contradicted him. Fox ‘news’ would tell their viewers that the Liberals were blaming Trump just because they hate him, and they would fall in line. Any news program that claimed otherwise would be labeled “fake news”. The sheep that watch Fox news would cancel any host who dared question Trump.
There is no one holding him accountable for anything. The Supreme Court told him to turn planes around and he just didn’t. If Trump dropped a bomb on a U.S. city, assuming you could convince people he did it (which I doubt), who is it that goes to the White House and drag him to court? No one. They wouldn’t let anyone in.
The only solution is protest. If 3% of Americans protested things would change. Historically, 3% is the number. But the longer they wait the harder it is, and they are all convinced they can’t do anything.
people need to stop quoting that 3% nonsense. its not 3% of the population chanting and waving signs that trigger change. its violence, either economic, property or physical. you’re not going to accomplish anything until you start breaking shit. and from i’ve seen people in the US are no where near the state of being willing to do that.
The 3.5% rule is a concept in political science that states that when 3.5% of the population of a country protest nonviolently against a government, that government is likely to fall from power. The rule was formulated by Erica Chenoweth in 2013. It arose out of insights originally published by political scientist Mark Lichbach in 1995 in his book The Rebel’s Dilemma: Economics, Cognition, and Society.
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.
Sources for over 3.5%: see the 2023 election results. 60 million people were willing to vote for a genocidal prick over trump.
Sources for ineffective protests: please attend any no kings protest and you’ll see what i mean. Words words words, and not a single action being promoted.
Sources for violence: pick a movement. Will find the violent aspects. But lets use gandhi as an initial example
If you think just having 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, property damage, 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 actuall doing anything.
Then you twats run around screeching 3.5% is all we need! God you’re all idiots. At least start fucking striking. Someones notices a numerical value and you twits think the number is magical all on its own completely disassociating it from actual context.
You’re either trolling or you’re too far gone from reality to get back.
Who hurt you?
Noone, I just think that anyone who thinks he would get away with bombing a city is either trolling or has a tinfoil hat so heavy they would not get phone reception under it.
I’ll assume it’s a troll and thought it useless to feed him attention.
Before Trump’ first term I didn’t think any president would get away with:
At this point Trump could bomb a U.S. city, claim it was a terrorist attack, and just dismiss any agency that contradicted him. Fox ‘news’ would tell their viewers that the Liberals were blaming Trump just because they hate him, and they would fall in line. Any news program that claimed otherwise would be labeled “fake news”. The sheep that watch Fox news would cancel any host who dared question Trump.
There is no one holding him accountable for anything. The Supreme Court told him to turn planes around and he just didn’t. If Trump dropped a bomb on a U.S. city, assuming you could convince people he did it (which I doubt), who is it that goes to the White House and drag him to court? No one. They wouldn’t let anyone in.
The only solution is protest. If 3% of Americans protested things would change. Historically, 3% is the number. But the longer they wait the harder it is, and they are all convinced they can’t do anything.
people need to stop quoting that 3% nonsense. its not 3% of the population chanting and waving signs that trigger change. its violence, either economic, property or physical. you’re not going to accomplish anything until you start breaking shit. and from i’ve seen people in the US are no where near the state of being willing to do that.
The 3.5% rule is a concept in political science that states that when 3.5% of the population of a country protest nonviolently against a government, that government is likely to fall from power. The rule was formulated by Erica Chenoweth in 2013. It arose out of insights originally published by political scientist Mark Lichbach in 1995 in his book The Rebel’s Dilemma: Economics, Cognition, and Society.
Non-Violent
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.
It’s funny that in 2025 people still think that just saying shit on the internet means anything.
Sources, or stfu dude.
Sources for over 3.5%: see the 2023 election results. 60 million people were willing to vote for a genocidal prick over trump.
Sources for ineffective protests: please attend any no kings protest and you’ll see what i mean. Words words words, and not a single action being promoted.
Sources for violence: pick a movement. Will find the violent aspects. But lets use gandhi as an initial example
If you think just having 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, property damage, 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 actuall doing anything.
Then you twats run around screeching 3.5% is all we need! God you’re all idiots. At least start fucking striking. Someones notices a numerical value and you twits think the number is magical all on its own completely disassociating it from actual context.