Today's 'NO KINGS' protest finally reached the critical 3.5% of the population

And TACO's parade was lame as shit.

45 million dollars for less than 9 thousand attendees.

Have the anti fascist protests reached Vietnam anti war levels?

My local protest was amazing! Huge crowds and 100% peaceful. And in just one small town we had at least half as many people as that steaming pile of shit's parade.

That would make this the largest multi-location, single-day protest in history. For a coordinated, global single-issue movement, the September 2019 climate strikes (6–7.6 million) were the largest known previously…

Incredible!👏👏👏

If anyone is wondering the source of this number it's coming from the National Parks Service that sent volunteers all over the country to do head counts in addition to counts using overhead drone imaging. It could be higher by morning as they are still tallying.

I saw a photo of a woman with a true Datalounger carrying a placard that said

[bold]A POEM

ABOUT NOEM

SHE SHOT HER DOG

SHE'S A CUNT[/bold]

R6 HAHAHAHA!!

3.5%...? can democrats not comprehend what it takes to win a fucking election?

It was really amazing to see so many people.

There were thousands in Cincinnati at UC. It didn’t rain. The crowd was energized yet peaceful. All ages were out and I only saw one maggot.

The line of people marching was at least a mile long and five people deep. Really amazing.

TRUMP=TACO!!!

I was at gay pride in Boston today and the parade went on HOURS longer than expected

3.5% is a tipping point in movements for social change (according to Harvard's Kennedy School).

That’s a made-up number.

I'll trust Harvard over you, R13.

11.6 million? I doubt it. Where are you getting that? Even MSNBC is only claiming 1 million.

R15 you seem like a real cunt.

What does "no kings" even mean? Western countries with k in kings today are stable democracies. Even in the days when the US was part of the British kingdom or whatever the kings were not involved in running it.

Where did "Harvard" say that and what does it even mean in practice, especially against elected governments?

Yeah R15-A real cunt

In your Google search bar, type "3.5% rule" and "Harvard." Hit 'enter.'

[quote]What does "no kings" even mean? Western countries with k in kings today are stable democracies. Even in the days when the US was part of the British kingdom or whatever the kings were not involved in running it.

Not to sound unkind, but do you have any conception of history prior to the twentieth century, and of the historical connotations of the word "king"? Have you heard the expression "rules like a king", or heard of French absolutism and the absolute monarchs who dominated pre-revolutionary France? Monarchies ruled the world dating back to Mesopotamia 4,000 years ago, and really until the end of the British Empire in the mid-twentieth century. It's relatively recently that many countries were replaced with republics. Kings and queens used to control the most powerful countries on the globe. "No Kings" is certainly an apt slogan for a "day of defiance" against the current president.

I did that, r20, and absolutely nowhere does it say that "Harvard" came up with it. A they/them female researcher at Harvard came up with it, but she's just one person at Harvard, she is not "Harvard". Presumably Harvard employs people with a range of views, even some who disagree with each other. Moreover, no one else has replicated this woman's data and she has not really applied it to countries where there are elections and where the aim is to overthrow the democratically elected political leadership. In addition, the only protest group that appears to have been inspired by her theories - eco warriors Extinction Rebellion in the UK, who thought if they could get 3.5% of the population at their demos then this would lead to the adoption of the policies they support - actually turned more people against them with their demos and now the government is in fact reversing many of its formerly "green" policies. So, the 3.5% theory failed miserably in that case.

R22 we get it. You're MAGA.

Super stoked for you.

I'm not even American, r23, but it's hilarious that your reply to someone asking about the 3.5% claim is "you're MAGA!". R8 is right. The attitude you represent is why the Democrats lose.

R17, most Americans under middle age have got their idea of American history from Hamilton.

Yes, r21, I know quite a bit about monarchies prior to the 20th century and the "no kings" slogan as a supposedly anti-authoritarian slogan is nonsense and displays no real understanding of how kingdoms were governed, especially the kingdom that the US was once part of. As an attempt at political analysis, it's very naive. What on earth does Mesopotamia have to do with contemporary America?

Kings have never ruled in the way that Trump's critics are accusing him of. Kings have in fact always sought a balance between the various institutions of power, including themselves, their ministers, the regional representatives and powers, the legislature and other institutions depending on the time and place, such as the church.

It's just a dumb slogan that shows shallow political analysis and hence a misunderstanding of why Trump does get the public support he does and why Democrats fail to get the people on board on many issues. Hence, I think it's safe to say that the "No Kings" protests are going to fail in their aims (what are their aims?).

R26, i am not r21, but your post , specially the second paragraph, ignores history. Kings, for most of history, were authoritarian. Louis XIV l’etat c’est moi was the general idea.

Only in the 18th century, after the French Revolution, monarchies started having limitations to their powers and this was pushed back by the kings. A century of revolutions ensued. England was the notorious exception and even it could hardly be called a democracy .

Going a while back, the no king principle was the reason Julius Caesar was assassinated . Rome was a republic then.

meanwhile...

R27, sounds like you didn't study much history about kingdoms at school and very little after. And even if you're correct, what does 17th-century France - a completely different world - have to do with the US today? So, when anti-Trump protestors in the US today say "No Kings", they're saying no to Louis XIV? And this is supposed to swing votes to the Democrats?

By the way, who are Trump's Richilieu and Colbert? France became a rich and powerful country under Louis XIV, with a brilliant legacy that still glitters today, so perhaps he wasn't so bad.

R24 my claim that you're MAGA has nothing to do with your 3.5% question. It's the way you write and the words you choose. Using words like "green" and "they/them" pejoratively is classic MAGA.

Oh and let's just use MAGA as a shorthand for conservative. American or not.

So tell me: Are you conservative or liberal? And no BS answer like "I hate both parties".

Just be honest.

[quote]A Change is Gonna Come

Keep hope alive, but I doubt it.

I'm a centre-left British lesbian, r30, so why should I support any American parties? Why the fuck should I take it seriously when a lesbian starts calling herself a they/them to deny she's a lesbian? If you had a brain, then you'd realise that the gender bullshit is a big problem for centre-left political parties - the trans and pronoun demands are a big reason why people in a whole range of countries have been put off voting left or centre-left.

I put "green" in quotation marks to indicate supposedly green government policies, which were barely green to start with and are now dwindling away, under a Labour government.

I'm actually now a non-voter. I would have voted Labour if I could have trusted them on the trans issue, but I couldn't, even if now in government they are fast dropping much of the trans lunacy they previously supported. If I lived in the US I would be a non-voter too.

By the way, r30, if you want to convince Republicans or even independents to vote Democrat, then perhaps don't round on them and start calling them MAGA as a perjorative or tell them that they're idiots and they're wrong. Sometimes people just have different views and if you attack people simply for not sharing your views, then you're only going to strengthen their views.

[quote]I'm actually now a non-voter.

Thank you centre-left British lesbian.

The MAGA troll is really butt hurt.

[quote] Only in the 18th century, after the French Revolution, monarchies started having limitations to their powers and this was pushed back by the kings. A century of revolutions ensued. England was the notorious exception and even it could hardly be called a democracy .

Ahem.

R25 Most Americans don't know shit about Broadway and have never heard of Hamilton.

Apparently some non-voting Euro Lesbians cant decipher between symbolic expressions of corruption and power vs literal interpretations of the word King.

R26 "Kings have in fact always sought a balance between the various institutions of power, including themselves, their ministers, the regional representatives and powers, the legislature and other institutions depending on the time and place, such as the church."

You may want to fact check this. with some actual history.

"No Kings" is an affront to the BRF freaks on DL. They're fapping to pictures of the crown jewels.

Ahem r36

R26 FFS. It’s a slogan to get people fired up. Have you ever heard of marketing/PR? Did you expect the anti-Trump rally organizers to use a long, complicated phrase to perfectly state the issues at hand while also exhorting the people to join in?

I’m the words of dataloungers far greater than I, “Move it along, Toots”!

Now that we know that R32 etc. is a Brit-splaining terf pedant, we can safely ignore her take on the current American scene. As for the "no kings" slogan, it was a direct response to Trump's post on Truth Social (and elsewhere) in February, "Long Live the King" (on his attempt to overturn congestion pricing in NYC), and it taps into the original American rebellion against George III's excesses (which you might have read about in the Declaration of Independence, the works of Thomas Paine, and elsewhere). A perfectly appropriate slogan to oppose a president who's claiming those royal powers. Screw him, and screw the posters raising their little straw men. The protests were a huge success.

Not surprised that you never answered my question about where you got 11.6 million protestors since you clearly pulled that number out of your ass to make your silly point about 3.5% of the population.

Not to mention that the only thing that unites these protestors is opposition to Trump. What kind of “real asocial change”are you expecting?

What unites these millions of protesters is more specifically opposition to Trump's authoritarian program. That's a broad unity. The protests—which took place even in small towns in red areas—let people who oppose that program know that they're not alone, and they let timid Democratic politicians know they have a solid support base to oppose MAGA.

But enough of these faux-naif criticisms. I'm starting to thing some of the posters here are opinion writers for the Times.

Doesn’t the existence of the 48% vote for Harris already demonstrate that there is broad opposition to Trump?

I marched myself. It’s a valuable thing. But it was not a starting bell for “real social change.”

Who’s being naive?

Still no source for the ridiculous number.

Originally, it was to be called the One Big Beautiful Day of Protest. No Kings is much better, as 43 and 44 point out. It’s simply a slogan—not too hard to grasp for most people who aren’t trolls.

R17 Looks like you could use a little history lesson via Schoolhouse Rock.

Enjoy!

[quote] I'm a centre-left British lesbian

Are you sure?

R17 never read the Declaration, nor many others on this thread apparently.

over 10,000 in Dallas, which makes it one of our largest protest marches. zero arrests -no outside agitators seen

If only these people bothered to get out and vote last November.

The point about No Kings is not really a reference to history. It is a direct bebuke to Trump's wish and stylings to be a King like ruler.

R55 The "golly, I never thought it would be this bad" crowd finally wakes up.

Which is frustrating but better late than never

In my city, San Diego, 60,000 were counted, LA had 250k, Chicago 200k. I'm assuming that 1 million protesters nationwide is a bit conversative, maybe 3 million, or 5 which is nothing to sneeze on. The US aren't France where there are protests pretty much twice a day. When 3 million people are rallying for one cause in the US it means something. This is certainly a significant mile stone. Damn proud of our people right now.

The 11.5 million people number is coming from the alt national park service. (The park service personnel are good at crowd estimates and many of them are out of work at the moment having been RIF’fed,)

Axios is reporting 5 million.

Either way huge!! Even my tiny Trump loving home town had hundreds of people protesting.

Trump’s birthday parade - sad.

R59 And remember, there were anti-Trump protests around the globe yesterday, too.

The world hates this piece of shit.

So there were terminated park service workers all around the country monitoring hundreds of rallies? Hmm🤔

You silly cows… quit arguing. The good news is that the number of protesters far outweighed the number of people at Dump’s sad birthday party. Newsmax and FauxNews can spin that any way they want but it doesn’t change the facts.

[quote] but it doesn’t change the facts.

Unfortunately, 'facts' haven't mattered for many years.