News

Right? It's the cops with the guns and the gas canisters, not the protestors.

And the protests are well into the thousands, yet only a few dozen arrests, and no reports of serious police injuries or death (if anything like that had happened, news everywhere would have been plastered wall-to-wall with that story). On the other hand, plenty of reports of protestors and media being harmed by police weapons. That is less violence and injury than after a major sports game.

Republicans, you’re in on this or I would hear something from you.

Always has been.

The cons hate America, hate freedom, and hate the Constitution. Always have.

Yeah, nobody's been hurt except by the cops. Some waymos and cop cars got burned; that's what they call Monday in LA.

those that make peaceful protest impossible...

We're not? One of our parties may be significantly less sadistic, but they both exist to lock the American people into a life of servitude for the rich. Our votes won't get us out of fascism, they'll only let us choose 4 years of "good cop" or "bad cop." We'll have to actually be okay with making our overlords mad at us in order to escape, and that includes the media; if the news is on your side, you can be sure the rich people who own it aren't sufficiently concerned.

I think a really good lesson comes from the documentary "Winter on Fire" about the 2014 Maidan protests. The tl;Dr is that the protestors organized a peaceful march, and the police set up a sniper corridor and started mowing people down indiscriminately. They shot people who ran out with stretchers to carry the people who'd been shot. That night, the protestors regrouped and announced their plans to march again tomorrow, and to do so armed, all 90,000 of them. Like a Christmas fucking miracle, the cops found somewhere else to be the next day, and nobody got shot.

https://youtu.be/yzNxLzFfR5w

Non-violent protests capable of dissuading hostile official intervention through MAD. Peaceable ≠ peaceful.

Don’t believe the doubters: protest still has power

Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.

There are, of course, many ethical reasons to use nonviolent strategies. But compelling research by Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist at Harvard University, confirms that civil disobedience is not only the moral choice; it is also the most powerful way of shaping world politics – by a long way.

Looking at hundreds of campaigns over the last century, Chenoweth found that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their goals as violent campaigns. And although the exact dynamics will depend on many factors, she has shown it takes around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change.

Working with Maria Stephan, a researcher at the ICNC, Chenoweth performed an extensive review of the literature on civil resistance and social movements from 1900 to 2006 – a data set then corroborated with other experts in the field. They primarily considered attempts to bring about regime change. A movement was considered a success if it fully achieved its goals both within a year of its peak engagement and as a direct result of its activities. A regime change resulting from foreign military intervention would not be considered a success, for instance. A campaign was considered violent, meanwhile, if it involved bombings, kidnappings, the destruction of infrastructure – or any other physical harm to people or property.

Source in article from 2019

It should be completely legal to shoot cops

I like this better

Caltrops pop them very easily

The people crazy enough to do something like that are the ones that voted for him. The guy that got his ear was a republican.

Whatever they choose to do is fuelling his ascension to dictatorship.

Which means the only strategy left (besides capitulation) is to play their game and beat them at it.